Amanda Ozaki-Laughon Paradigm

Last changed 28 October 2020 1:27 PM PST

Hi there!

My name is Amanda, and I'm the DOF at Concordia University Irvine. It's been a while since I've judged at a tournament, so I'll just give a few highlights:

*Not a very big fan of these things they call NIBs, to be honest I simply don't understand how they work. Sorry:( I won't vote on them.

*Things that are rules of the game (Topicality, time limits, prep, etc) are A Priori. Everything else is up for debate.

*Since this is my first tournament in a while, and my first one really judging virtually, please slow if I say slow. I promise I'm not doing it to be annoying, but I can't evaluate things I can't write down.

General stuff:

I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.

Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. That being said, a we meet acts as terminal defense under competing interpretations, so that's a way to win as well. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both. I do not enjoy voting for RVIs and have a very low threshold for defense on these. I do not enjoy voting for spec args honestly can't remember doing so.

Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
2020 Golden Gate Invitational C 2020-10-31 Open Semis Rice ST PDAB MR Opp Opp 3-0
2020 Golden Gate Invitational C 2020-10-31 Open Quarte PenSta SS Rice ST Opp Opp 3-0
2020 Golden Gate Invitational C 2020-10-31 Open Octas SanDie HP Rice ST Opp Opp 3-0
2020 Golden Gate Invitational C 2020-10-31 Open Double UCLA NS PDAB AW Opp Opp 3-0
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open Elim 5 Rice TB Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley RR Gov Gov 2-1
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open Elim 4 Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley KT Rice TB Gov Gov 3-0
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open Elim 2 Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley RR Western Washington CJ Gov Gov 2-1
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open Elim 1 Rice TB Western Washington CJ Opp Opp 3-0
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open R7 Western Washington CJ Rice CS Gov Gov 3-0
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open R4 Western Washington AB Whitman FW Gov Gov 2-0
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open R2 Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley KT St Mary's PJ Gov Gov 2-0
National Round Robin C 2019-03-02 Open R1 Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley RR Rice CS Gov Gov 2-0
Steve Hunt Classic C 2017-10-14 oparl OR1 the Pacific CM Oregon DH Gov
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open Semis Washburn BK CSULB CD Gov Opp 2-1
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open Quarte Berkeley KZ Washburn BB Opp Opp 2-1
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open Octs SCU HH Berkeley KZ Opp Opp 3-0
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open R6 Berkeley HY Washburn PW Opp
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open R5 Washburn BB Berkeley KZ Gov
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open R4 William Jewell HJ CSULB CD Gov
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open R3 SCU HH Missouri Western State University MS Opp
Golden Gate Invitational C 2015-10-03 Open R2 CSULB FL Berkeley HY Gov
Golden Gate Invitational 2015-10-03 Open R1 Missouri Western State University GH SIU SS Opp