Chow,+Andrea

experience: hs LD (both circuit and lay) + policy, and also everything else from pf to interp to oratory. I dare u to name an event I Haven't done. You can't

"Adapt to me or get off my lawn." -Luis Sandoval

- Leo Kim is my coach so assume ill evaluate the debate pretty similar to how he would except im def not as smart http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Kim%2C+Leonardo - Varad doesn't coach me but i think he's like the greatest ever and i agree with everything on his paradigm so take a look at that too if u want https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=11572

pref me for: larp, Ks pref me a little lower for: phil, framework strike me for: T/theory (as a go-to strat), tricks

things I expect u to do: - refrain from racism/sexism/ableism etc - know what was read and what wasn't read in the speech doc w/o asking your opponent - have a thorough understanding of your args - yes, i can tell when u didn't do the work and u look stupid af - have personality :) I appreciate sassy debate - provide trigger warning if warranted

my wiki (aka the kind of stuff i am most comfy with) https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/La+Reina/Andrea+Chow+Aff https://hsld.debatecoaches.org/La+Reina/Andrea+Chow+Neg

1.) plan affs are awesome. get creative and teach me something new. maybe be a little bit abusive. if ur neg and ur opponent does not read a whole res aff and it was disclosed, i expect to see case specific disads and cps. also stop making me evaluate bad disads. i dont wanna watch a debate with something that very obviously doesnt link. i will tank your speaks in addition to giving u the L. 2.) i'm kinda lowkey a k hack. its mostly what i go for, so i will have a better understanding of your args if u go for some flavor of race/gender/cap etc and you are likely to get a more competent rfd. IF U ARE READING POMO U HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT!!! i hold weird shit to a higher standard. "we wont ansswer your cx question in order to inject mystery into the debate" is NOT an answer. i wont be happy if i can tell that u stole the k file from the policy wiki because u were lazy and didnt wanna do work. i will be happy if i can see that your links are contextualized and you can explain them in cx, because u put in the work. 3.) if t/theory is your go-to strat, STRIKE ME. that is not to say i won't evaluate it - ive gone for it plenty of times. but going 7 off and its all stupid theory violations will definitely frustrate me. i will default to reasonability. i dont care if u think thats bad judging. stop making me listen to theory debates when there obviously was no/minimal abuse. no, i dont vote on blips from the 1nc shell that were barely extended. do your work. *EDIT* TEXTUALITY/GRAMMATICAL PRECISION ARE NOT STANDARDS SO STOP READING THEM AS SUCH 4.) i have a decent understanding of phil (i can explain to you 6 different reasons why phenomenal introspection does not prove util true thats cinnabon 08). that being said, your mesozoic sudafed axiomatic korsgaard theory is not gonna get voted on if i dont know what the hell youre talking about. if you cant explain it to a kindergartener, dont read it in front of me. 5.) i think debate is good. im sorry if you disagree. 2-second blips that get extended in the 2nr, mean absolutely nothing, and win you the round are A BAD MODEL OF EDUCATION. i understand that debate is a game, but it's a game with consequences. if you go for tricks i will IMMEDIATELY give u 22 speaks. this is non-negotiable. you are an asshole and you are probably also a pretentious white boy. get off my lawn.

how to get bonus speaks: - +.5 for clean line-by-line + signposting. for real. please do it. - +.1 for bringing me food (i like bananas and captain crunch cereal) - +2 for revolutionizing debate - +.1 for complimenting me. im really shallow. - +.2 for making fun of any of the following people: sophia nuñez, azi hormozdiari, andrew overing, emily aguilar - stolen from Fred's paradigm: to get a 30 u need to have swag, and if u don't know what swag is then u don't have it

from varad's paradigm: Speaker Point Scale: 29.6 - 30: You did everything I could have ever wanted and more; thank you for ending my unending cycle of terrible debates. 29 - 29.5: You'll be in deep elims, there were a few technical mistakes made and I think you'll beat most of the debaters in the pool based on you performance. 28 - 29: I think you'll probably break. You did very well as a whole, there were a couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout. 27 - 28: You probably won't break and there are larger debate technical issues that need to be resolved. 26 - 27: Major errors committed, effort questionable. Below 26: You're bad and you should feel bad.

if u r a dick or u say something offensive (slurs, the n-word, etc.) I will be pissed as fuck and I will give u exactly 0 speaks w/o hesitation. u think I'm joking? try me.

INCLUDE ME ON YR EMAIL CHAINS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD andrea.nicole.chow@gmail.com