Stenn,+Lillian

**Experience**

4 years policy at Vashon High School 1 year policy at George Washington University. Currently a Junior at George Washington double majoring in International Affairs and English Right now I'm an assistant coach for Johns Creek High School, where I was brought on to work specifically with the critical teams this semester & last. Last year I coached for Woodrow Wilson High School, and I've also worked for Interlake, Vashon, and Broad Run. I've coached kids to/through multiple bid rounds. I've probably judged 50+ camp rounds and 25+ national tournament rounds, including bid rounds and late elims of several national tournaments. I worked at the SDI with all the classic labs and both Hoya Spartan Scholars labs the summer of 2014

**Top Level-**

Generally I’m fine with any form of argumentation style, I’ve debated the national circuit, I’m current etc. I know its annoying to have judges say the debate is yours, do what you want, but that's generally how I feel about it. I have almost equal experience on all sides of policy and K debates and clash of civs, and I do not have a preference to what types of debate I watch. I believe that my role as the judge is to evaluate the round, and try to intervene as little as possible. In general, due to the area of the nation I debated in in high school, as well as the camps I attended, I have more experience personally debating policy-oriented rounds, but I have more experience judging and coaching critical rounds.

I am a technical debater, and thus tend to look at debates I judge technically. I try to evaluate the round as a whole in a big picture, and how the arguments interact as the debaters explained them, rather than in a flow-centric way, as I think this is most fair to the debaters. That said, clearly structured arguments, line-by-line, and sign posting if you're not following the flow are all key for a clean and good debate, and also higher speaker points. The easiest way to win a close debate in front of me is to point out concessions and frame the debate.

*NOTE- Please let me know before the round if there is anything myself and your opponents should know in the way of preferred pronouns, or accommodation for processing issues, trigger warnings, etc.

**T-**

Generally default to competing interpretations as I think it is better for debate. That said, I can be fairly easily persuaded vote on reasonability- but more in the context of your interp being reasonable than your aff being reasonably topical. I think a good brightline then is how the aff specifically is not T as per certain standards/ precedents set out by the parameters of the topic (i.e extra T/ FX in the context of oceans of whatever), and generally has a strong in-round abuse story. I'm hard pressed to vote on potential abuse.

A good T debate is technical, organized line-by-line, impacted, and extrapolated with examples. I have no problem voting for T, but these debates get really messy. Make sure you're drawing clean lines across my flow and capitalizing on concessions.

**Counterplans-**

I think the counterplan needs to compete off some kind of internal or artificial net benefit. I will still vote for you if you run a counterplan that competes off certainty, but I'll be way more lax towards slightly severance or intrinsic permutations and theoretical objections as a reason to reject the argument. If the counterplan solves all the aff/ is a process counterplan it needs to be textually competitive. I don’t think counterplans necessarily need to be both textually and functionally competitive, but the best and most legit ones are.

Not the biggest fan of cheating/ process counterplans, but there are so many smart aff ways to answer them, and generally they are pretty generic, so read, them, but generally I tend to err aff easily in matters of solvency deficits and theory when your CP is sunsets or whatever.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">The BEST counterplan is well researched, has specific and intelligent answers to common 2AC answers, and has clear roads to solve internal links or advantages <span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I will judge-kick the counterplan but only if told to do so by the negative.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**K’s-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m familiar with pretty much most k-lit you can and will read. I’ve gone for the K a lot, researched the K a lot, debated the K a lot on the aff and neg etc. I'm also an English major so I spend a lot of my time reading critical theory and philosophy.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think framing issues are important, and when there is good clash on the K especially on the impact level of the debate, meta framing makes it a lot easier for me to figure out how you want me to weigh your K against the aff. I think sans a debate that has arguments like serial policy failure, K precedes policy discourse, reps first, the K is a better political solution etc., it becomes very easy for the aff to weight their impacts and very easy for me to vote on a risk of a perm if they prove a risk aff impacts outweigh or come first become.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">You can kick the alt or read a K without an alt, however I will evaluate the K as a non-unique disad, meaning I will weigh it against the aff the same way I would a disad.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Floating piks are fine but theory is important to handle right. You can be shady, just defend it well. I don’t think that if the aff concedes a floating pik they automatically lose, I evaluate it more in terms of conceded sufficiency framing on a counterplan.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Topic and Politics Disads-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Generally with topic disads I don’t have a specific link to UQ threshold, as the debate generally comes down to the impact level or specificity of a link/ link offense or defense.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Politics disads are some of my favorites arguments, and I spent most of my junior & senior year going for politics strats. If you have a good debate with good clash on a politics disad I will be so very content. Remember when you read politics that one very good card will always outweigh ten crappy ones. Generally I think all-encompassing topic links are OK, but if the aff has case-specific link turns (which they should) then I will not be very persuaded by your link articulation. Unless there is a technical concession, I tend to believe link controls direction of uniqueness. Good impact framing is key to win any debate, but especially a case/disad debate, and I will expect that.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Most theoretical objections to politics disads are wrong and illogical, but they still need to be answered. I usually wont vote on intrinsicness or bottom of the docket and the likes unless its mishandled by the neg.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Theory-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">Fine pulling the trigger on most arguments that have real standards i.e. the big ones condo, pics/piks bad, process/consult/conditions bad etc. You need to do line-by-line and impact your arguments in relation to theirs. Saying “fairness comes first outweighs education” doesn’t help me much. Having a counter-interp is generally a really good thing, as it can help me resolve the debate in a very clear way i.e. what this debate COULD have looked like had the aff/neg been fair. I am not very game to vote on arguments like “no neg fiat voter for debate equity reject the team.” Blips like that and ending every sentence with “and that’s a voter for fairness and education” without any tangible impacts are probably not reason to reject the team, however if they are mishandled, dropped, or answered poorly, they can be reasons to reject the argument.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">*Update- "fairness" is a stupid impact because debate isn't fair. Real world and portable skills are the most persuasive arguments when going for theory. Tangible ground loss is also a fine argument but go beyond "that's unfair to the aff."

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**So You've Decided Not To Denfend the Hypothetical Inaction of a Plan-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I have experience reading and debating affs without plans & identity politics affs. You don’t need to have an advocacy statement, however I should have a clear idea of what the aff produces if I vote for you, whether that’s scholarship, how I should orient myself around the topic, if my ballot will possibly change debate, or just a simple explanation of the role of the ballot.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">If I have no idea what your aff does I will often err to the most “pragmatic” option in the round, meaning whatever actually “does” something. This is not necessarily political pragmatism, this is pragmatic in the context of the ballot.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I don't think its acceptable to read an identity politics argument from a social location that is not your own. Its OK to read arguments ABOUT other identities, but individualized strategies in debate and actual id politics shouldn't be commodified by others for a ballot.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Narratives / Performance-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I've judged a good amount of performance debates. I usually flow little because I can understand it best by experiencing the performance. Unless you have a specific way you would like me to flow, I will just flow the thesis points of your performance. I understand the implications and reasons for performative debate, but I think it is helpful to have some sort of articulation of why you performed, why your performance is key to the round, and what it means for the round and in relation to the other teams arguments. If you do not utilize your performance throughout the debate but continue to just debate as per usual, you should probably rethink why it is you chose to perform in the first place.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I’m fine with personal narratives and non-personal narratives. However if you are going to read a narrative that is not your own you need to have a VERY good defense of why you get to do that. I am VERY persuaded by brown/ chow/ bell hooks-esque arguments regarding narrative commodification, especially when you are a white-male from a private school reading the narrative of someone who is disenfranchised by a specific form of systemic violence. I don’t think that is okay, and I think that ‘they’re only doing this for the ballot’ arguments are true.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">**Framework-**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I have had a lot of different thoughts and feelings about framework over the course of time, and I've decided this; framework, like any other argument, is very strategic sometimes, and not strategic other times. Here's why framework can be a good argument: at its core, framework seeks to create an even playing field in debate, which is the same goal that many affirmatives that don't defend plans strive for. However, at times, framework is not strategic, and can easily become ignorant, offensive, and sometimes aggressive. So don't be that framework debate. At the end of the day, one argument beats another and one team wins, which is why we pay attention to strategy in the first place, to win.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I don't have preconditions for how you debate framework, but I will say framework debates with specific links and cards to the thesis and methodology of the affirmative are the smartest ways to debate framework. I tend to prefer framework debates with external impacts, or at least well explained implicit impacts because I want something to hold onto beyond what is "best" for topic education, or what is most "predictable." The easiest way to help the judge evaluate the debate is just the same as in any other policy v. policy or k v. policy debate- impacts and impact comparison.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">I think engaging the aff at least during constructives will make a better and more productive debate.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">*Update- Calling framework 'T' does not make it a different argument.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">*Update- I evaluate the whole framework flow and how the arguments interact. So dont get mad at me if they concede some small techy ground arg but I think surveillance state bad for black bodies outweighs. Just because you win tech doesn't mean you win on framework. This is not extra t against a policy aff.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">That’s pretty much it, if you have specific questions feel free to ask me before the round or email me @ lili.stenndeb@gmail.com