Kauble,+Dan

I am a debater from the University of Northern Iowa with an exclusive policy background. If my philosophy could be summed up in one sentence, it would be this: “Be clear and spend your speeches making my decision as easy as possible.” The simplest and best articulated case is the one that wins.

=__**How to successfully debate before me:**__=
 * 1)** **FLASH OR EMAIL ALL EVIDENCE** to me __before__ speeches; this allows me to go through and clean up my flows after you have finished speaking. I should be opening 1AC the moment the round is supposed to begin. My email is kaubled@uni.edu.
 * 2) SPREADING** should be done in a manner which makes it easy for the listener to differentiate between evidence, tags, or off-scripts argument. You can read cards quickly, but be sure to slow down when reading tags, topicality/framework, or making off-script arguments. If you are an extremely fast speaker, be sure to __slow down__. Also speak loud and clear; your words should sound like actual words.
 * 3)** **EXTEND EVIDENCE** (or reference it) by clearly describing what was on the card instead of just repeating the name of its author. This goes for every speech in the round.
 * 4)** **EXTEND ARGUMENTS** clearly and in detail. The contents of effective responses should be proportional to those of their corresponding arguments in that all claims must be addressed.
 * 5)** **RESPOND** to all arguments effectively and pounce on those which the other team has dropped or not properly extended.
 * 6) ROAD MAP** clearly before speaking and let me know which flow you are switching to during speeches; do not consistently hop back and forth between flows. I strongly(!) prefer debaters to respond to the arguments made on a flow in the order which they were presented in; as such, __line-by-line__ is crucial. Failing to do this will only irritate me and risk me missing/improperly flowing your responses.
 * 7)** **EXPLAIN**/break down all non-traditional concepts you present. Though I will probably be familiar with whatever it is you are reading, there are many types of angles one may take with things such as colonialism and intersectionality and I need to know exactly what you are trying to say.
 * 8) TIME YOURSELVES.** I believe that time management is a crucial debate skill and that every debater should have their eye on a timer while speaking and while listening to their opponents speak. If you do not do this your speaker points will be impacted.

=ON ARGUMENTS=

**How to Win:**

 * A key point of your final speech should more than likely be focused clearly on whatever __**impacts**__ you have been discussing __throughout__ the round and why your impact calculus outweighs that of your opponent.
 * Furthermore, you need to respond to any arguments evidence and arguments presented by your opponent in every speech and at least once during the negative block. If, during the 1NC, a neg team reads a Tweet by Kanye West describing how the plan will cause the world to end by robbing him of a Grammy Award and the aff does not address it all until the 1AR, that will be an automatic win for the neg.

Affirmative Cases:

 * I am extremely partial to traditional cases, ones which are topical and have short, concise and strong link chains with clearly described __**terminal** **impacts**__ (or an impact that is explained to be just as bad). My ballots are decided by weighing aff impacts against those presented by the neg; whichever side presents the largest impact with the shortest, most probable, and best explained link chain will win my ballot. (Be sure that the structure of your 2AR handles impact calculus appropriately.)
 * __**Permutations**__ must be clearly described and expanded; I am not a fan of teams spitting out multiple perms which all lack substance.
 * I am open to voting for __**non-traditional/non-topical affs**__; in order to win my ballot they must prove why a lack of topicality is fair and why I shouldn’t vote against them on framework. Furthermore, it is best for such teams to clearly present impacts which are shown to outweigh those of the neg (which could accuse the affirmative of in-round abuse or harming education). I also prefer that, when presenting such cases, teams speak slowly and clearly.

Disads:

 * I am a sucker for clearly cited and explained disads. Ideally, link chains will be short, well-explained and end with a terminal impact outweighing any presented by the affirmative. You must describe impact calculus in your final speech appropriately by explaining the probably, magnitude, and time frame described by evidence. Furthermore, the neg must explain why the impacts of

Topicality:

 * Topicality is best used against blatantly non-traditional affirmatives. I need students who run with topicality to go slow and clearly explain all claims/violations as well how the affirmative is breaking the rules. I strongly prefer teams to explain what the in-round impacts of violations are throughout the round.

Framework:

 * My feelings on this are pretty much the same as topicality; you will be best suited by focusing on the violations of the other team and all in-round impacts.

Counterplans:

 * I really like __**properly deployed**__ CPs. Such a CP includes a plan text, clearly explained mutual exclusivity, and an explanation of how it solves better than the affirmative. The mutual exclusivity will be used to defeat permutations.
 * Note for both the affirmative and negative: I get irritated when __**theory**__ is used by teams responding to CPs and Ks, as I believe both to be perfectly fair. You can run theory, but do so clearly.

Ks:

 * I am __**not the biggest fan**__ of Ks, as I prefer arguments that more tangible. However, if you do choose to run with a K, go slow and explain your alt and impacts. Impacts are key to me voting for your K; be sure that they outweigh any presented by the aff.
 * It should be noted that even if your alt fails your arguments and impacts can still stand as an __**independent disad**__.

Arguments Regarding Race, Gender, Queerness, Ability, Class, etc.:

 * As stated earlier, be sure to go slow when describing these sorts of things. I need to know where you're coming from.
 * I am very aware of oppression stemming from the things listed above, and I fully support any arguments and impacts centered on them.
 * However, teams which choose to run such arguments need to either present a **__tangible impact__** resulting from oppression that outweighs the other team's OR read evidence stating that the **__extinction is preferable__** to living under this oppression. Successful utilization of one or both of these things will factor heavily factor into my decision.

=__Speaker points__=
 * Although most judges deal out speaker points in a very arbitrary manner, I allot them based on two __**specific criteria**__**:**
 * The first, **articulation**, is based on how well you organize, explain, and present your arguments; for a majority of rounds this is my primary consideration in regards to speaks.
 * The second is criteria **respect**. Although a certain level of brashness is to be expected when it comes to debate, there comes a point where such attitudes cross over into straight disrespect and become abusive. I expect all debaters to maintain good sportsmanship at all times, and I do not tolerate debaters who treat their opponents with insults, unsolicited rudeness, and other behavior in that vein. Furthermore, profanity that serves no strategic purpose in the round will also be punished through speaker points and, in extreme cases, the ballot. This is also true for homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, and other such things.
 * Something that will get you a fair number of speaker points in my book is by making __clever__, __logical__, and __appropriate__ __**references**__ to pop culture (specifically movies), historical events, and national figures. Though I may be humored by it, a
 * I have a wide variety of interests