Brooks,+Cammy

Name - Cammy Brooks Affiliations - McNeil High School, Texas State University

History - I debated for four years at McNeil High School and qualified for TFA state twice. I attended Sarah Lawrence College during my first year and I'm now a sophomore at Texas State.

General presentation preferences - Stand while you're speaking and be nice! You don't look smarter if you're a jerk, you just look like a jerk.

Topicality - I like it a lot and stick to the flow when evaluating it. I really like case-specific T args and enjoy when the rebuttles come down to comparing standards.

Disads - Keep the whole story of the disad in the debate until the end. Don't forget about the scenario or I will too. I like specific links and comparitive impact analysis.

Case Debate - I like when the aff actually uses the 1AC cards throughout the round. Each of the 1AC's cards are probably there for a reason, and I think it's lame when debaters don't use those cards in other parts of the round when they should. I like case debate a lot and generally enjoy when it's in the 2NR. I like specific case arguments best and think those are the most fun to hear. I think it's often a waste of time to read a ton of generic case arguments in the 1NC unless it's strategic in some other way. In other words, I don't like hearing arguments that you're obviously not going for.

Counterplans - I love love love counterplans with Kritik net benefits. I think it's awesome when the counterplan battles to soak up a specific framework or advocacy that the 1AC has. I think it's most interesting when the debate isn't just about the net benefit, but also about how the plan and counterplan actually function and whether or not the counterplan could be as successful as the plan. I don't like 2NC counterplans. If you want to do something sketchy like that, you'd have to throw in a floating pic on a K or something and win the theory for it. But basically, I won't be too amused if the top of the 2NC is a counterplan text.

Theory - I like theory when it makes sense. If there is actually abuse and you want me to vote on it, don't be afraid to take your time because if you don't spend time on it I'm not going to vote on it and you just wasted your time reading useless theory. So, don't spread theory. I'm not going to get or remember your 15 blippy reasons why PICs are bad if you don't give me pen time, and I'm certainly not voting on a theory arg that I didn't get a chance to flow. Speaking of blippy points, I'd rather have 3 or 4 really well articulated reasons than 15 repetitive reasons without substance. I have a really hard time voting on potential abuse, but it can be done depending on how outrageous it is and how well you articulate it. It's important that you explain why I should reject the team and not just the arg and give it lots of attention throughout the round and really explain and impact the abuse story.

Kritiks - I like them if they're explained well. I hate them if they're not. Don't assume I know anything about your K or why it's awesome, just explain it to me. Take your time. If I'm lost, confused, or don't understand by the end of the 2NR, you're not getting my vote. When extending cards (especially if they all have the same author), explain them individually so I know which part of your argument we're at. That being said, if you explain your K well and you have a clear link and impact, I'll be very interested.

Critical Affs - I really like them. As long as it makes sense, it'll get my attention and I'll enjoy hearing it. I love the framework debate that usually comes along with critical affs. When it's done well, I think framework's probably one of my favorite parts of debate.