Amanda Ozaki Judging Philosophy


#1

Hello! :slight_smile: My name is Amanda Ozaki-Laughon, and I am the Co-Director of Debate at Concordia University Irvine, where I competed in parliamentary debate for 4 years. This is my first year on this side of the ballot. This won’t be long, because skimming judging philosophies right before prep is still pretty fresh in my mind.

Personally, I don’t feel as if my opinions on arguments will completely reach a certain end point. I hope I never reach a point where I stop learning. Debate is always changing, and I am almost always open to hearing new ideas (unless it’s your sweet impact turn on why patriarchy is good…or e spec).

I enjoy smart, educational debates where each team is engaging the method of the other, whether that be a debate focused around the topic, or a debate focused around systemic problems inside/outside debate. Shockingly, usually those debates occur when all the advocacies in the debate are unconditional! But seriously, sarcasm aside, I went for process counterplans and politics disadvantages just about as often as I went for Wilderson and Homonationalism. As long as your warrants match up with your claims and your impact calculus is on fleek, I’d love to hear it. Unconditionally.

Some of my weaknesses:
-#Obvi, I’m a first year out, so apply all your coach’s normal hesitancies.
-I often read theory in the MG, but rarely went for it in the MO.
-I prefer fewer, more in-depth arguments than debates where people are freaking out about dropped tiny blips with no impacts.
-I was not a fast debater during my career, so I am still a bit unsure of my speed threshold. If I say “clear,” I mean be more clear. If I say “slow down,” it means exactly that. I won’t be shy about saying either, because that would not be fair to you!
-I was a very technical/distanced debater. I never talked about my personal identity, experiences or background in my arguments. Later during the year, I watched many debates where emotions/the arguments got extremely real. I don’t want my lack of tears or emotion on my face to be misconstrued as being callous if I have to judge a debate like that. At the end of the debate, someone has to win and another has to lose. Debate is, after all, a game that I adore, and I will do my utmost to resolve any debate I am in front of in the most fair and educational way. This means that I am just as willing to vote on framework as I am to vote for what may be considered a non-traditional affirmative.
-Speaker points are rather subjective. I would never accept bribes. However, if you buy me starbz, I can’t guarantee that it won’t effect how many points you get. I like iced vanilla lattes.


Judge Philosophy Directory