Marshall,+Isaac

Judge Philosophy

Isaac Marshall Former debater for Edgemont high school, class of 2012. l attended the toc my junior and senior year. Currently a freshman at NYU.

Email: isaacmarshall19@gmail.com

Strikes: Edgemont High school

Summary

1. I'm cool with anything, just debate it well. Do your thing and be strategic. 2. The more specific the better. While someone can obviously win a debate on a consult cp or a spec argument, I would much rather see an in depth DA/case turn debate or plan specific cp/K. 3. Clarity is a wonderful thing that not enough people strive for.

Specific stuff

Case Love a great in depth case debate. Aff's tend to not be as prepared as they should when the neg does their homework.

DAs They're great!

CPs 1. Love well researched plan specific CPs and PICs.

2. Consult/Conditions - I am under the opinion that consult/conditions cps are illegitimate. I can be convinced otherwise, in particular if you have a plan specific solvency advocate/very good reasons why the CP is competitive. Defining 'should' and 'resolved' is not what I'm talking about. All this being said, I have and will vote on these arguments.

T/Theory

I default to competing interps, but reasonability is great!

Clarity is vital here, gotta give me pen time if you want me to get all your arguments

Ks Love 'em when they're specific. Make sure to clearly explain how the critique interacts with the aff, or I'll probably end up buying arguments like 'we have specific solvency'. Tell me the role of my ballot or I'll default to believing I'm a judge of a debate seeking to evaluate whether the plan text as a normative statement is a good idea.

Final notes

I understand fierceness in cx, but be cordial. Don't say stuff like racism/sexism good.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round or email me.