Walberg,+Alaina


 * Alaina Walberg**
 * Olathe Northwest High School 2014**
 * Baylor University 2018**

Last Updated: 09/16/15

About me: I debated for 4 years at Olathe Northwest in Kansas, and am in my second year of debating for Baylor. I’ve been all 4 speaker positions in the last year, but I’m currently a 2N. Aside from camp I’ve judged zero rounds on this topic, but have done enough research that I am at least somewhat familiar with the lit base.


 * Short Version:**

T: I tend to like more squirrelly affs, so I probably have a higher threshold than most when it comes to pulling the trigger on T. I default to competing interpretations but can be persuaded otherwise.

DA: You should usually read them. Case specific DAs are ideal, but generics are fine too. Turns case args and impact calc make it infinitely easier for you to win.

CP: DA+CP debates are my favorite. I think, in policy rounds, if you don’t have a CP in the 1NC you’re doing it wrong.

K: If you’re a one off team or want a super in-depth K debate, you should not pref me. That said, I read them, I’ve gone for them, I don’t care if you read them in front of me. Just be prepared to give a little more explanation over what you’re saying if it’s something other than like Cap or an IR based K.

Case: Important. If you’re going for something that’s not T or theory, you probably need to go to the case in the 2NR. There is such a thing as terminal defense.

Theory: Similar to T, I’m probably more lenient than most judges. Slow down. Aside from condo/dispo, I think most args are usually reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

Delivery: Go fast, don’t sacrifice clarity. The more times I have to say clear, the more your speaks will go down. A good CX can be devastating- use your time well. Other: “Even if” statements are awesome, no prep for flashing/emailing, don’t be a jerk. Tech over truth- a dropped argument is true, but you have to impact that out for me.


 * Long Version:**

T: I read squirrelly affs in high school, I enjoy when other people read them. However, I think there’s a difference between squirrelly affs (ex- Gitmo on the Latin America topic) and stupid affs (ex- engaging with the town of Mexico, MISSOURI on the Latin America topic). I’ll be annoyed if you read a stupid aff. Also you probably need to slow down a little if you want me to catch everything you’re saying.

DA: Pretty self-explanatory- I think they’re usually a good thing to read. Case specific DAs are pretty tight but generics are just fine, as long as you have good link analysis. You’ll have a much better chance of winning if you have turns case args and impact calc in both the block and the 2NR.

CP: Like I said, DA+CP debates are my favorite, especially if you have a good case-specific CP. Cheating CPs are fun and I have a pretty high threshold for them, but aff, don’t be afraid to call them on it.

K: Not super experienced with a lot of the lit, but you’re fine to run them in front of me. Neg, you should tell me what your roll of the ballot is, what voting for you means, and how the K implicates the case. Aff, you should also explain your roll of the ballot and what voting for you means. I lean toward the aff being able to weigh their impacts but it’s very possible to convince me otherwise, or just win the root cause debate on the K. If you want me to understand what you mean, you need to actually explain things not just use buzzwords. All that said, if you want a super in-depth debate on the K or run one off, I’d recommend you not pref me.

Case: Super important, regardless of whether you’re going for a policy strat or K in the 2NR. I do think there is such a thing as terminal defense/zero risk of an impact.

Theory: Honestly I have a pretty high threshold for voting on theory- as explained with untopical affs and “cheater” counterplans. Very few theory args are reasons to reject the team. However, I do think 3 conditional worlds is probably abusive and will likely be sympathetic to the aff on that. You need to slow down some, I want to be able to write down/hear your arguments and you probably want me to also.

Delivery: Go as fast as you can, while still being clear. I’ll say clear, but I will dock your speaks for it if it becomes a problem. CX is awesome- but there’s a difference between being assertive/”winning” CX and just being a jerk. Don’t be a jerk.

Other: The 2NR and 2AR should write my ballot for me- tell me why I should vote for you and use “even if” statements. Even if you don’t win, it’ll help your speaks. I won’t take prep for flashing/emailing, but don’t steal prep. That’ll irritate me. There’s a difference between attacking someone’s arguments and attacking them personally- it’ll also irritate me if you do the second. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you have to tell me why it matters that they dropped it and impact it out in the round.