Tryneski,+John

= = =  = =**John Tryneski** = =**Niles North High School** =

**Background**  - I debated on the national circuit at Homewood-Floosmoor High School from 2001 to 2005 and worked as an Assistant Coach there between 2005 and 2010. This summer I accepted a position as the Head Coach of Niles North High School in Skokie, IL where I am starting a policy debate program for the first time. I'm also working as a para educator at Niles North and am a certified Social Studies teacher. I graduated //cum laude// from Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin in December 2009 with a double major in History and Education and a minor in European Studies (ie. I'm much better read in the political/economic realm than in philosophy/critical theory).

**Judging Philosophy**  - I will vote on the arguments made it round. I will use my own filter for what I believe in terms of what kind of arguments are best/how debate works as little as possible, based on how well teams are explaining and comparing voting issues. Most rounds usually come down to two or three large questions where the teams fundamentally disagree. Far too many speeches from the 2AC are too narrowly focused on minutiae and ignore the actual issue being debated. An easy way to pick up both ballots and speaker points in front of me is to highlight as early as possible the fundamental issues that you have to win and spend the rest of the debate proving this.

**Disclaimer** - Because I vote on what I'm given to work with, you probably have all you really need to know right now, make your strongest arguments and impact them. What follows is mostly philosophizing of the "in a perfect world" or "if I had my druthers" variety. It's mostly helpful for those with very specific questions about my predispositions to certain types of arguments.

**Role of the Ballot**  - I do fundamentally believe that debate is best when two teams argue about a hypothetical action by the US government. Affs that ignore this are at a severe disadvantage in front of me. Kritiks should probably speak directly to the question of this action. If you want my ballot to mean something other than an endorsement of a hypothetical action, make damn sure I know what my ballot means and why I should vote for you.

Also, can we all just agree that the aff gets to weigh their case and the neg gets to weigh their impacts? Unless you have something beyond this to say, framework is probably a waste of time.

**Kritiks**  - I realize that I'm often seen as being anti-critical, which is only partially fair. I think K's are much more likely to be run in a shallow, non-competitive manner and it is generally hard to earn my ballot running a K as either non-unique DA to the status quo or giant floating PIC. Outlining a specific link to plan action is something that is often forgotten and essential to winning a K. The neg should also take care to clearlly outline their impacts and alternatives early in the round and spend the rest of the time developing them WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLAN. Spouting buzzwords and rephrasing tags will make for bad debate, lousy speaks and generally make me grumpy.

I’ll also warn the reader that I'm pretty wary of the Foucault/Zizek/etc. thesis and approach. I'm certainly no expert in the literature, but what I have read has been unpersuasive in proving reality claims about the nature of power/the state/the attitudes of so-called "liberals". I think that these type of arguments tend to be run in the more sloppy style I criticized above. Kritiks I like are ones that make discernible claims about how the world operates that either directly undermine or contradict those of the affirmatives. Generally it's a good bet that if there's specific literature about or a common sense way of articulating a link, it's much more likely to be a worthwhile argument.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**Disadvantages** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - On the DA, don’t be afraid to think! One good analytic with a few cards to support is far better than 5 nearly identical uniqueness cards and a few Ornstein link answers. As a brief aside, although I love politics, you’re probably better off running a good case-specific DA than your generic politics/econ shell. I'm also curious as to why few debaters are willing to mount a spirited defense of non-intrinsicness as a reason to reject generic DAs. Oh, and, as always, IMPACT ANALYSIS in every speech after the 1NC you should start your DA flow NOT by showing me how you're winning the flow but WHY winning the flow matters in the this round. If you're aff this means saying not how you're winning the DA flow, but why case outweighs or turns it.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**Counterplans -** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Are generally a good thing, both case specific and those that test actor/branch. I generally do not favor consultation counterplans, besides being artificially competitive, they're also ludicrous and distort real world foreign policy making. Because of this, consult CPs are one area where I'm very open to theoretical arguments. I'm also generally not a huge fan of word PICs. Although the aff does need to defend every word in the resolution, I think that the idea of the word PIC is both somewhat of a distortion of the "rules" of debate (ie. the plan text, as written, could never in the real world be a law, ruling, order, etc.) and also generally features a net benefit of dubious quality. Generally one is much better off critquing the assumptions and ideas behind a plan rather than a single word chosen to express them.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**Topicality** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - I'm less inclined to view Topicality as a DA with a strict offense/defense paradigm. I enjoy interestingly written T arguments that actually deal with the grammatical structure of the resolution. I'm therefore not a huge fan a fan of the grind-it-out "increase" or "substantially" type T debates (and the less said about SPEC arguments, the better).

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**Theory** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - The way theory is run has become ridiculous. Please, please, please, read four or five flowable, reasonable theory answers instead of blitzing through your block. If the other team blitzes through their block, point this out, make your own answers and move on. 90% of the time, the way theory is handled, it’s a waste of time for both teams.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I also think that a lot of neg theory answers (such as “increases 2AC critical thinking”) are mostly excuses to force the 2AC away from answering substantive arguments, which harms the quality of debate. I think defending theory within the context of the round will help you (ie. one conditional actor cp is not the same a two condo pics and a throwaway K). Unless you feel an argument is genuinely shady and can articulate that clearly, you're probably not well-served going for theory in front of me.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**Cross-Ex** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**CX is perhaps the most routinely underlooked element of winning debates. Using it effectively will help you both gain my ballot and increase your speakers points.** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Use this time to hash out warrants/quals of evidence, explain the theses of your arguments and pointing out contradictions in your opponent’s.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">I said before that most debates come down to big ideas, not line-by-line coverage. A lot of the work explaining your ideas and highlighting differences is done in cross-x. Besides establishing credibility, being able to focus cx on important distinctions and directly respond to the other team is incredibly helpful. Due to the nature of debate, arguments in speeches often become shorthand for more developed descriptions given in cross-x. Good teams will make the most of their cx time.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**General Comments, Speed -** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> I grew up debating speed and I can follow most fast debaters reasonably well. Despite that, debate is, at its root, an activity about communication and most debaters would be very well-served by slowing down, improving their analysis and making their arguments more clearly. At the very minimum, please <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**slow down for and emphasize tags, cites or longer analytical arguments.** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> The harder I have to work to understand you, less I like you and the less I'm getting from your arguments. Finally, everyone needs to slow down on T blocks and theory. I doubt anyone could fully understand, never mind flow an 8 point dispo block that was read in 11 seconds. This is almost as bad as not making an argument at all. You're wasting your time in constructives if I'm still trying to go back and fully write in your arguments into the second rebuttals.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By far the best debaters I've seen were able to win competitive rounds without resorting to unclear speed and often speaking almost conversationally. This is because they were able to distill the round to important arguments and make solid analysis of the actual ideas being argued. This is not a coincidence.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**Time Stealing** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - I feel that time stealing is becoming increasingly accepted among debaters and it is enervating. I don't think that most students do this maliciously, but it does rub me the wrong way. Please be conscientious about how you use your prep, etc, time. I will get annoyed if you're not ready to give a road map after stopping prep or have a bunch of little things (getting a drink, setting up a laptop, etc.) before starting your speech. If you are a paperless debater, this means having your speech flashed, ready to give to the other team when you say "End prep." Please go out of your way to show me that you respect my and your opponents' time.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">**General Niceness** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - I love truly competitive debate and I understand the intensity that comes from this, but always remember that we're here to learn and have fun. To use an outdated and possibly patriarchal sports metaphor, I want Jim Thomes, not Pete Roses. This covers both little things such as being needlessly aggressive or talking when your opponent is speaking to bigger ones such as ad hominem attacks to making spiteful or inappropriate arguments or comments during the round (you should be able to discern what this category includes). The great thing about policy debate is that it is whatever we make it, make it as enjoyable and rewarding a place as possible and you're aces in my book.