Cambre,+Brittany

Current debater for UGA. Debated at Hooch in High School. Qualified for NDT in 2009.

Topicality - I think T is a valuable tool that is often underutilized by the negative. I do however hold the negative to a relatively high threshold for articulating exactly what their interpretation is and why it is better for debate overall. If you decide to go for it in the 2NR it should be your primary focus and you should be well warranted on questions of fairness ground etc. Furthermore, impacting those and explaining which standard is a priority is important if you want to be effective at it. I am more willing than most to give weight to the reasonability argument on the aff if you explain why the world of debate that you allow by running your aff is not that bad or even good. I can be persuaded that competing interpretations is arbitrarily exclusive and a bad standard, but unless debated well I tend to default to competing interpretations. I also think that T= genocide is virtually a nonstarter. I am a policy debater at heart and think things like having a plan and debating the resolution is important. For performance teams, I am not going to automatically disregard your arguments, but you have a large burden to prove why ignoring the resolution or not having a plan is best for debate.

Theory - I'm a 2N, so I tend to err negative on questions of theory. That being said things should be within reason. Multiple conditional alternatives (2+ cps and/or a kritiki) takes conditionality to a whole other level and I would be much more willing to listen to the aff on questions like that. That being said I have a pretty high threshold for theory and unless a substantial amount of time is devoted to a particular argument I am probably unwilling to vote on it. Outside of conditionality I don't think many theory arguments are a voting issue. If you win another theory argument (ie PICs bad, no neg fiat etc) I think it is just a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

CPs - I think PICs and specific counterplans are the most strategic argument in debate. They are my favorite things to run and what I would most like to hear as a judge. I think there should be a well articulated net benefit and the risk of that net benefit should be relatively substantial in comparison to the solvency deficit. What I mean by that is I'm not likely to vote on there's always a risk of a link to the net benefit. The net benefit should be well explained and impacted, especially in the world where the aff is winning a solvency deficit. Comparisons between the relative risk of the solvency deficit and the net benefit are pretty important when I'm making my decision and it would serve you well to set that decision calculus up for me instead of me just arbitrarily assigning risks to certain portions of the debate. In terms of other counterplans like consult or condition counterplans I realize their utility and am perfectly willing to listen to them. However, I do think they are extremely hard for the aff to generate offense against and would be very amenable to theory questions against those counterplans, but it should be a substantial time investment put forth by the aff and like I said above probably not a reason to reject the team. So take that as you will.

Disads/Case - My other favorite 2NR strategy. I do find more often than not that the 2N can get bogged down in minute details on these debates. My advice is similar to that of the cp net benefit. There should be substantial comparison between the DA v. the case impacts. Most of the debaters who do that impact calculus will win the debate even if they lose significant portions of the case debate. It's all about prioritization and which impact should be privileged.

Kritiks - Make sure to explain in depth. Honestly, my knowledge of this literature base is extremely shallow. I'll listen to the argument, but most likely I wont get all the nuances or references you're trying to make. I'm pretty aff biased in regards to things like the alternative doesn't solve the aff, questions of framework, and even sometimes the perm if explained well. My biggest problem with most K debates is the explanation of the alternative and what it actually does in general and even what it does to solve the harms the aff isolates. I think the aff should exploit this more and really press the neg on the alternative. Most people can't adequately explain the alternative well enough, but the aff needs to be willing to call the neg out on the vagueness of what the alt does and use that to implicate solvency. I won't tell you not to run the K, but if you do decide to go for just be aware that a little more explanation of the argument is necessary and that my personal dispositions err aff against the K.

Other than that I can't think of anything else, but don't hesitate to ask questions.