Cunliffe,+Margaret


 * Last Updated 1/3/17**


 * Background:** I debated for three years at Millard West High School in Omaha, NE. I was a 2A/1N for the entirety of my debate career, and primarily ran middle of the road affs. I'm currently studying at Columbia University, and while I'm no longer debating, I do some debate stuff at school and for West when I can.


 * China:** I have judged about 5 rounds on this topic, and I haven't done any particular research for specific affs/negs. Take the time to explain the relevant technical details of the aff to me (how it functions, important acronyms, etc.), because I'm not going to have much background knowledge beyond what's in the news.


 * Most Important Stuff:**
 * Do what you do best. I'm willing to vote on almost anything you put in front of me as long as it's executed well.
 * Tech > truth.
 * I will only read your evidence after the round if there is an indict of evidence that has not been resolved within the debate, or if the debate is muddled to the point that evidence quality is the deciding factor. I will always default to your analysis, and the criticisms you make of your opponent's evidence in round.
 * A dropped argument is not a true argument without an impact and a warrant. I still need to know what the perm means even if the negative didn't respond.
 * Well thought out analytics and historical examples are very persuasive for me - continually extended and explained analytics > unexplained shallow cards.
 * K affs and Ks are totally okay with me - I am most likely to vote you up if you still provide some form of topic education and if you can clearly explain why performing as a scholar/activist/student is preferable to roleplaying as the USFG. For negs, I'm very amenable to framework that posits state action as a kind of counter-method to the aff. I think both K affs and framework usually suffer most from going too broad and not specifically addressing the benefits/harms of the 1AC for debate.
 * I'm not a huge fan of blatantly conflicting advocacies. This does not make condo an automatic voter for me, and I think there are clever ways to show how on-face contradictory arguments can work together. However, I think it is a pretty lazy neg strategy, and it makes me much more sympathetic to the aff if they choose to perm or justify severing reps against one of your positions.
 * I won't vote for any argument that claims racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia are good. Making discriminatory comments toward your opponent is always an automatic loss and a talk with your coach and/or the head of the tournament.


 * Technical Details:**
 * I don't take prep for flashing/sending the e-mail.
 * Speed's fine as long as you're clear.
 * Card clipping = 0 speaks for you and and an automatic loss. Video/audio evidence needs to be provided to me to prove any suspected card clipping. If a false accusation is made, the accusing team receives 0 speaks and an automatic loss.
 * Please don't steal prep. I'll give you a warning once, and if I catch you after that, I'll start the timer without telling you.
 * Tag team CX is fine, but speaks will be docked if one partner is speaking excessively over the other.
 * Being sassy and/or aggressive is great. Being an asshole is not. It will show in your speaks and my obvious irritation with you during the RFD.
 * I type kind of loudly. If that's a problem and/or overly distracting to you, let me know and I'll flow on paper.

__**Specific Arguments**__


 * K affs**


 * I really like K affs when they're executed well. Two things are going to make me more likely to vote up your advocacy:
 * 1) Be at least germane to the topic. I believe that part of the value of debate comes in exploring different topics from year to year, however you choose to do that. I'm willing to vote on affs that choose to ignore the topic if a well thought-out and well-defended defense of debate outside of the topic is provided, but I think it weakens your response to the negative's claims that their education and ground have been lost.
 * 2) Focus on the reasons why your method is a better form of knowledge production than "traditional" modes of debate. I don't believe ballots can start a movement or that the "debate space" is an effective point to begin creating external social change. Arguments that focus on the particular skills and education gained from acting as activists/scholars/performance artists and the ways that education could not be gained in a traditional USFG good aff are much more persuasive to me. The government we are entering into is not a space that has a lot of radical or reformist potential, and I think that only strengthens taking a non-traditional approach.
 * I only vote on role of the ballots if there's a clear reason given to me by the affirmative to prefer the ROTB to the traditional "whoever debates better wins" approach. I have a high threshold for this, and I think it requires a fairly significant time investment in later speeches if this is essential to your strategy.
 * Being aff vs. framework - I have no real predisposition in these debates.I think a lot of K affs suffer from being too general in their 2AC - the 1AC usually has very compelling anti-state arguments and specific defenses of the aff method, so the more your 2AC draws from the specifics of your 1AC and the less you rely on generic "state/roleplaying bad" args, the better off you are with me.
 * If you attempt to perm framework in any way or claim that your aff will affect change on the state eventually, I need a specific explanation of what the aff does with regard to changing the state externally that could not be done internally with a plan.
 * Performance of any kind is cool with me, but make sure you incorporate the significance of your song, poem, or whatever else you do into the debate past the 1AC.
 * Framework**
 * "Ks/K affs are cheating and make people quit debate" forms of framework are not persuasive to me, and I am very persuaded by aff claims of silencing/exclusion against this argument.
 * Framework as a methods debate (i.e. "the state is a fundamentally better way to access your solvency") is a way more interesting and persuasive argument for me, and I ran it very frequently in high school. Specific T versions of the aff, relevant historical examples, and overall treating your framework like a counterplan to the aff's method are all good ways to get my ballot.
 * Impact analysis is critical to win framework - loss of ground is not an impact by itself. Tell me what specific kinds of education are lost by allowing the aff in the 2NR and how those forms of education limit our ability to engage as citizens in the future.
 * Making your framework specific to the current political climate is useful for me - a fully Republican USFG raises a question for me of whether the political can be ceded any further.
 * Ks**
 * Totally down for them, read the 1-off K or went for it a bunch in high school. I'm mostly familiar with cap/neolib, Heidegger, and identity based Ks, particularly those to do with gender. I've run some Baudrillard and read a fair bit of older philosophy at school, but I'd say that in general high-theory philosophy is not my area of expertise, but I'm fine with hearing those kinds of arguments. No matter how much I know about what you're reading, I default to your analysis. I'm not here to fill in the gaps for you.
 * I want to hear a K specific to the aff. Links like "they use the state" and links of omission are not compelling to me. I love hearing lines or cards of the 1AC referenced and very specific link articulations.
 * Buzz words are not persuasive. Straight quoting a lot of your authors and their jargon is probably going to confuse me. Instead, slow down a bit in the block and give me an explanation of the thesis of the K in layperson terms. I am always super impressed by people who can translate exceptionally academic authors into something that's easy to understand and relevant in the context of the aff.
 * I've seen many K debates stumble in clashing with their opponents' defense of their method. In-depth defense of how your method is superior to and mutually exclusive with a utilitarian/policymaker framework makes me much more inclined to vote for the K. Otherwise, I'm sympathetic to perms by the aff claiming that they can incorporate the K's politics after solving the existential crises posed by their impacts.
 * Topicality**
 * Treat T like a DA for me and it's great - fairness/ground is not an impact in and of itself. Instead, tell me what education is lost and why that education is critical to our development as debaters/future advocates for stuff. T version of the aff is great and should always be in the neg block if possible.
 * I always prefer topicality arguments that are rooted in some kind of substantial in-round abuse and I think it makes it easier for the neg to win an impact in that case, but I'm open to any T argument that claims that the aff hurts debate in some way. I don't think that potential abuse is a voting issue.
 * Ks of T are fine but I think they're stronger when you provide some kind of we meet or counter interp for how I should view the debate.


 * Theory**
 * I think theory is nearly always a reason to reject the argument and not the team, unless it's a condo argument or really significant abuse can be proven.
 * If you want to go for theory in front of me, invest significant time in it in the later rebuttals (at least 3 and a half minutes in the last rebuttal), and get off your blocks. Make sure you're finding examples of abuse within the round, and, like with topicality, essentially treating it as a DA.
 * CPs **
 * I didn't run a ton of CPs in high school, so if it's highly technical or has a ton of planks, please take the time to explain any tricky stuff you want to do. Totally cool with them as long as they're explained well.
 * Please slow down on your CP text so I actually know what you're advocating for.
 * I'm not predisposed one way or the other about cheating CPs, but I can be persuaded by aff theory, especially if there's obvious in-round abuse.
 * DAs **
 * I'm fine with anything you want to do here. I really enjoy specific DAs, and I think the more generic you are, the easier it is for the aff to win. However, I think that even the most generic DAs can become specific if good link analysis and impact comparison is made between the aff and the DA.
 * The more illogical your politics DA, the less I'm going to like it. Be knowledgeable, reference specific senators and representatives, understand and talk about the current political climate, and I'll be super into it. Internal link chains are usually super weak for politics, and aff teams that exploit this, even just with analytics, have a way easier time against these arguments with me.


 * Other Stuff**
 * Being funny is cool if that's who you are. Really just do what you do to the best of your ability. Make me care about the debate I'm watching. Have fun and learn some stuff.