Baldwin,+Maisie

=**Quick Overview:**=
 * **I am an open book so read whatever you'd like.**
 * **I can probably keep up with you.**
 * **Be organized.**
 * **I like blood baths and passion.**
 * **If the tournament allows, I will give oral critiques and answer questions after the round.**
 * **How to W.I.N. my ballot**
 * **Warrant**
 * **Impact**
 * **No Mercy**


 * General stuff:**I primarily did LD in high school in a relatively lay area. That in mind, I did a bit on circuit and can keep up with speed up to about 350wpm. (I'll call clear once, maybe twice per speech. You're on your own past that.) I also spent a couple of months doing PFD and am competent with policy. For all styles, I'm fairly tab and leave the weighing to debaters. On that note, PLEASE be sure to weigh arguments. Either make the pieces of the flow clash and show why you're winning or tell me why your specific arguments come before your opponent's. I don't like "floating" arguments that seem to not have a place in the evaluation process. As a result, unless you impact your argument or explain why it comes prior to certain arguments, don't expect it to win you the ballot.

If you're going to read krit lit in front of me, please be sure to take it slightly slower. Also, please be sure you explain how/why your opponent's actions are addressed within the K, and also have some sort of impact. Beyond that, don't hesitate to read something new or odd in front of me-- I'm always down for innovation and creativity when it comes to debate.


 * LD:** Feel free to LARP, go insane on the off-case debate, read entirely framework and no contentions, or some sort of performance case. Honestly, I will entertain it as long as there is a reason why I should vote you up AND ALSO why that is better than your opponent's reasons.

I will lower your speaker points for regurgitating as opposed to engaging, being rude (which is different than just being dominant over your opponent), physically attacking someone in the room, or failing to assist your opponent should they be in physical danger*.


 * PFD:** Honestly, I would just be really impressed if you checked any judge's paradigm as a PF debater. Do your thing and don't ignore important arguments. Run whatever.


 * Policy:** Sign post and be organized. I'll entertain any arguments as long as you provide me an evaluation mechanism with warrants.

Questions are welcome prior to the round as well. Seriously, if you're confused or need clarification, it's much better to ask.

---


 * If you are running some sort of Nietzsche argument, or any sort of atypical analysis about how pain is beneficial, you would be exempt from lowered speaks as a result of failing to assist. Alternatively, if you are explicitly advocating the lack of moral culpability for "allowing things to happen" (act/omission distinction exists) you would probably be required to allow your opponent to suffer to demonstrate your lack of moral necessity to help. In the aforementioned scenarios, if you act and your opponent points out that you are functionally contradictory, she/he may win because of your intervention.