Schmitz,Camille

I got great experience at Lake Highlands High School in all speech and debate events, particularly PF and interp. I now attend the University of North Texas where I major in psychology and minor in philosophy.
 * Background**

I value the traditional speaking style for each event, for example, a collected approach to LD and a fiery approach to PF. Although I can follow one hell of a spread, I don't believe in spreading outside of CX, and say this before every round. I find that spreading is often a detriment to a round, especially when an experienced debater is competing against a novice, or speed takes precedence over clarity. There seems to be a nasty trend of spreading in Public Forum. This defeats the original purpose of PF: to argue in display of the public.
 * Debate**

That being said, my preference for tradition will not remove the win from a great individual or team. In the end, the debate comes down to //who argued better//. This, to me, does not exclude speaking ability, but mastery of debate centers around the arguments themselves. Warrants, framework, and clash will move the flow in favor of the deserving victor(s). Therefore, as a judge, I adapt to any speed, style, and logic, as long as the whole package is there.

I usually do not disclose because I find that competitors improve more when they can evaluate the round without knowledge of the win. For this reason, I write as much constructive feedback on the ballot as possible. Our goal in forensics is to develop better speakers and thinkers.

For simplicity's sake, I'll outline some basic preferences.

Pet peeves:
 * iPhones as timers (Mom is blowing up your phone? Should've bought a timer.)
 * Over-dominance of the round
 * Spreading when unclear
 * Misunderstanding of opposing case
 * Irrelevant arguments
 * Mumbling

Loves:
 * Courtesy in the round
 * Clarity of rhetoric
 * Deep understanding of the topic
 * Listening well to opponents' case
 * Creative arguments (always encouraged, within reason)
 * Analytical arguments (I often give more weight)
 * Lightness and humor
 * Printed cases and evidence
 * Clash, topicality, and relevance
 * Beautiful minds at work


 * Speech**

I love the artistry involved in speech and have been so impressed by the top competing actors and orators. Overall, time and talent produce the technicalities that make a piece work; as judge, I recognize these things (or lack thereof) as follows.

Pet peeves:
 * Sound effects in a serious moment of a serious piece
 * Flatness
 * Unconvincing character
 * Cliche pieces
 * Memory slips (so painful)

And loves:
 * Crisp transitions
 * Effective flow of the "up"s and "down"s
 * In oratory, good writing (This should never go amiss)
 * Clear time invested
 * A great voice
 * Dynamic (and convincing) shifts
 * Well-cut plot
 * In DI, nice breaks from the drama
 * In HI, an insanely quick pace