Trzynka,+Bob

Background:

I have been involved with debate, with a couple small hiatuses, since 1990. During high school, I competed in Policy, LD, Foreign Extemp, Drama, Duo, and Humorous. Since then, I have judged Policy and LD fairly extensively. I spent the last two years coaching the Vermillion, South Dakota team and am now practicing law.

General Notes (Policy):

I am a big fan of well-structured argument. Know your position; make it well; balance analytics with evidence; etc.... I have no issues with speed. That being said, your speaker points will be hurt if you slur everything together. Clarity, in both thought and speech, is excellent.

I will vote on most any grounds. An argument is an argument, and I will accept it as such. Granted, there are some baseline rules of the activity, but if the argument is cogent, I may be persuaded to bypass those rules. As a general rule, I am open to voting on Topicality (actually, I rather enjoy a good T argument). I will vote on critical arguments, however, I do find that most debaters do not have a clue what the framework they're debating so fiercely for actually means. Be sure you know what you're talking about (which is generally a good way to approach me as your judge).

Generaly Notes (LD):

As above, I love a well-structured argument. I buy into the formal nature of argument construction. In LD, we have the added responsibility of framework analysis. Whether you choose to use old or new school LD style, you are still using framework analysis, at the end of the day.

I am well versed in the theoretical backgrounds of most frameworks in use on the circuit, from classical philosophy to modernist and post-modernist critique. Again, please try to have, at least, an elementary grasp of the framework you are advocating.

I would prefer a slightly slower pace in LD than in policy (although, I am coming around).

Parting Notes:

Feel free to approach me before or after the rounds if you have any questions.