Marshall,+Drew


 * Drew Marshall**

I debate NPTE/NPDA style parliamentary debate for the University of Utah. I previously competed for Ranger College. I have competed at the NPDA, NPTE, and at NFA LD nationals. I have three years of a widely ranged judging experience.

__**General:**__ Tell me how you want me to evaluate the round. Tell me why you win the round if I choose to evaluate the round that way. In the case that you do not specify how I should view the round, I have a few paradigms to which I default.

-I will evaluate the round based on a criteria of net benefits; being time frame, probability, and magnitude of impacts. -I will evaluate T and Theory debate based on competing interpretations; meaning that if you win your theory argument on the flow, you're coming out on top of that particular debate -I will not prioritize traditional theory shells above framework claims, or vise versa, unless told to do so. -I will consider permutations tests of competition.

I'm ready to drop all of these defaults the moment that you engage in a debate as to why I should. Overall, what enjoy the most is good argumentation. Whatever style of debate you feel like you are best at, go for it. Yes, even stock issues. Just be ready to defend reasons as to why that debate should be evaluated that way

__**T's**__

I prefer to see in round abuse on T, but I can be persuaded to pull the trigger on potential abuse if the neg is far ahead on that issue. I'll usually only vote on RVI's if they are dropped by the neg and extended by the aff. I enjoy 2AC answers to T that give __unique__ reasons as to why the aff's counter interpretation should be preferred.

__**K's**__ >
 * I enjoy the K debate. To win my ballot with a K, you are best off winning at least one of each of the following: link, impact, competition of the alt, and solvency of the alt. However, even if you are winning all of those things, and your solvency requires a framework that is different from net benefits, you should be winning the framework debate to pick up my ballot.
 * __K Aff's__**

> __**Speaker Point Preferences.**__
 * Yeah, I'm down. x-apply the above.


 * //Cut down in the neg block.// This makes it easier to evaluate the round, and is generally just better debate.
 * Pop your tags. Speed is fine, but its very helpful for me if you pop your tags and separate each card with 'and' or 'next' or something of the sort.
 * Keep my flow clean. Most of the time this means sign posting more than you probably feel is necessary.
 * Be respectful.
 * I prefer that rebuttals go for fewer arguments with deep analysis.

__**Additionally,**__ If you receive a written RFD from me, there will likely be spelling errors.

Prep time stops when your flash drive leaves your computer.