Chuang,+Andrew

UChicago ‘18 Ferris ‘14

Updated for Glenbrooks 2015

I debated for four years in WA on both traditional and more progressive circuits. I did well on the local circuit, qualified to state twice and I also made it to a bid round at Whitman. I don't like the implications that come with being a “traditional judge,” but I think that’s the fairest way to describe me on the national circuit. Also have not judged on the current topic/been involved with the debate scene recently.

I prefer to see your own approach to the round, and I will try to evaluate arguments as objectively as possible. I tended to read framework heavy cases when I still debated, so I operate best in substantive/framework-focused rounds. Be very clear about weighing impacts and more theoretical justifications for your frameworks.

I’m unlikely to vote off of theory spikes and frivolous theory in general. I’m pretty open to Ks, DAs, CPs, etc, but again, I may not be the best judge to evaluate those arguments.

Speaks are based on my overall impression of your skill level, including strategy, efficiency, and argument quality. I don’t really care about whether or not you stand or sit, dress nicely, use a laptop or not, as long as you’re nice about it. Bonus points for balancing being sassy and being nice in round.