Alaina Walberg ParadigmLast changed 10/30 3:39P CDT
4 years in Kansas in high school, 4 years at Baylor University, now a grad student and coach at KU and Barstow.
She/Her or gender neutral pronouns.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Do what you do best, I think it is the burden of the judge to adapt to what the debaters want to do and will do my best to be unbiased when evaluating arguments.
Judge instruction/telling me how to write my ballot is really important, points will be higher and you'll be more likely to win if you put the pieces together in the 2NR/2AR, are actually honest about the parts of the debate you're winning and losing, make even if statements, etc.
I think I have a higher than average expectation of the 1AR. Because of this, it's helpful for me if 1ARs flag where/why the 2AR should get new explanations and if 2ARs justify new args or try to tie new explanations to a specific 1AR argument.
If you prompt your partner please don't both talk at the same time - when both of you are talking at once it's really really hard for me to process and I'll end up getting none of what you're saying.
***Note for high school: if someone reads Red Spread against you, for the love of god just say cap is bad please.
Basically everything but condo is a reason to reject the arg not the team.
Slow down some. Impact it out in the 2NR. Don't forget to explain what winning competing interps or reasonability actually means for you.
DAs and CPs
I don't do a lot of topic research, so it'll be helpful for both of us if you do a little more explanation on topic specific things like link stories/solvency mechanisms/etc.
Good analytics can definitely beat a crappy DA. Floor time links on politics make me sad. I like cheating CPs.
Explain why winning framework matters for you and how you still win the debate even if you lose framework.
I don’t think you need an alt to win but a well-explained one will make it much easier to do so.
2ACs should explicitly answer each of the link arguments even if it's just by explaining that it's a link to the status quo, a block that can impact out a dropped link argument well is likely to get my ballot as long as they are somewhat ahead on the framework or impact framing debate.
Good. I do think it is possible to vote neg on presumption, so specific analysis about aff solvency or method is important. I find myself voting overwhelmingly aff in debates where the negative concedes the aff in the 2NR, so I strongly recommend extending your best 1 or 2 case arguments regardless of what else you're going for.
For the neg: 1) You need to answer the case – their theory is wrong, reform is possible, etc. A 2NR that has no way to cut back the aff’s ability to impact turn fairness or topic education is in a rough spot. Presumption can be a good arg. 2) I default to fairness is not an impact but is an internal link to debatability, clash, topic education, etc. This doesn’t mean don’t go for it as an impact, just that you need a warrant. 3) Framework is about the model of debate the aff justifies, it’s not an argument why K affs are bad. If you’re going for framework as a way to exclude entire critical lit bases/structural inequalities/content areas from debate then we are not going to get along.
For the aff: 1) You need a counter interp or counter model of debate, it's really helpful if you can explain what debate looks like under this model. 2) I am not a huge fan of the 2AC strategy of saying as many disads to framework as possible without explaining or warranting any of them out. 3) Leverage your aff as an impact turn to framework. The more effectively voting aff can resolve the impact turn, the easier it will be to get my ballot.