Harrington,+Andrew

I coach for UC Lab. Can't Judge: Paideia, UC Lab. Fave Teams of the recent years: Centennial KK, Emory FG, Little Rock WW, Oklahoma CL
 * Background:** Former Debater at Paideia School, UChicago C/o 2020,

Last Update: for Lexington 2017

TLDR: T is always a voter. I am fine with K affs, I am fine with kritiks. I love the politics Disads, Impact turns, highly technical debates. I have most likely read the literature on K/political science oriented topics. If you haven't it will become abundantly obvious. CP's don't need a solvency advocate. Framework: I eval. at impact level. Use your aff cards. Neg: make turns case. I think SSD is probably true. I also thing the aff will never win that their FW is better for BLACK PEOPLE or quars or POC's, but that is not necessarily a RVI or whatever.


 * Thoughts I have before the Education Topic:**
 * The topic is hella big. Limits and ground are good**

Don't be a jerk. It hurts your speaker points.
 * 2016 updates**
 * Formal Overview: I have evolved a lot in how I view debate as an activity. I think that over the few years I have come to realize that the debate spade is in danger not because of bad debate, but because of debate that lacks meaning. As such, I have picked up an affinity for smart Kritikish arguments. These include but are not limited to: Heidegger, Antiblackness, Fem K's, Baudrillard, Cap/neoliberalism, and anything under which I believe is a smart argument with good evidence. Keeping this in mind, remember that you still need to win impacts, and THERE IS NOTHING WORSE THAN A BAD K DEBATE.**


 * Flowing:** If I am flowing, you should be. I like to look at arguments in groups, and I don't like to have to jump around. Remember to sign-post during the rebuttals if you know you are prone to fall under the curse of jumping around. Just know that if I don't catch an argument, I won't evaluate it. With that in mind, speak clearly, and don't try to rush through taglines. That's just annoying. I will NOT yell clear, because I think it's rude, for both sides. I will instead put down my pen and look at your partner.


 * Speech Flashing**: I don't take prep time for flashing. I will get angry if you steal prep time. Don't.

//**> 27: you did something to REALLY FUCKING ANNOY ME.**//
 * Speaker Points** (at the Varsity level, usually curved for JV/Novice depending on the tournament quality)
 * 25 - You read a K/Impact turn/argument that was racist and offensive.**
 * 27-27.5 - need improvement**
 * 27.5-28 - slightly below average to average**
 * 28-28.5 - good debating**
 * 28.5 - 29 - great debating**
 * 29-29.5 - phenomenal debating**
 * 29.5 - 30 - Just Spectacular**

Specific Args**:**

Counterplans: **logical policymaking matters, and an assessment of the magnitude of the solvency deficit/ability to solve the case in terms of the risk of the net benefit is really important to me. Important note: I do think the nature of the topic and/or existence of a solvency advocate for the counterplan can justify certain counterplans that I may not be as fond of (consult, etc.) For theory args: I am fine with Condo/Dispo bad, but only on one front. Don't be the debater who argues 3 different Condo bad arguments. I will not vote for you.**

Kritiks: **I personally like running K's (hello look above), I think many times what gets lost in debate rounds is that we ARE in fact debating topics that matter, and if you have some bad assumptions, your opponent can bring that up. That being said, if by the 1NR it becomes clear that:**
 * A) you have not articulated a clear alternative to the presumptions you are kritiking**
 * B) you have not even tried to relate the kritik debate to your opponents SPECIFIC aff, or**
 * C) you don't present a LOGICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE framework argument,**
 * then I will not vote for you. Don't just say "They talk about Capitalism, Capitalism is bad" actually delve into their presumptions. Examine the 1AC's flawed thinking. But I won't err either way.**

DA's**: Any thing goes. I understand and have read in my free time many ptx DA's and their authors, so be ready to explain if you go for it in the 2NR. People also don't realize how bad mant of the authors are. Don't be afraid to call you opponent out (For ptx, or in general)**

Topicality:** I think topicality is many times waste of time, frankly, but I won't hold it against you if you run it, and I will vote you down if you don't answer it. I am persuaded most by "predictability args, There are some nontopical affs out there, and there's even more grey area. Everyone says this, but if you go for T in the 2NR, you better have set it up well before then and you better go all in. If you don't buy your argument, how am I supposed to? I tend to lean aff as long as they check their bases on T, but if you drop it, it's your funeral.

Framework: most of it is covered above, but you need to have a reason in at least 1AC Crossex as to why you cannot just be topical. And if you don' I think that is a clear T version of the aff solves 100% of the offense warrant. Now, you can recover but it will hurt your speaker points.