Background

I work as a Program Manager; I work with 8 to 10 teams across the globe. All team members think differently and they are all right. Relationship and communication, regardless of the culture, are the keys to be successful in the type of work I participate.

Approach to judging

I believe a debate is the process of clarifying my own belief, but it may come across as I am imposing my belief upon another person. When I judge, I get so busy comparing the arguments of both debaters and completely consumed by listening so my own beliefs do not get a chance to influence me. I compare two arguments like a math equation, but do not forget to add emotions because that is also part of the equation.  I do use standard Lincoln-Douglas flowchart and depend on that heavily. 

Presentation preferences

All debaters, I have seen in my career as a judge, are amazingly respectful, professional, neutral, constructive, and disciplined and that is why I like to participate. Clearly understanding the content is important to me your opponent and speaking style should reflect this.

I am a parent judge. That means in order to effectively communicate to me, you should be slow, concise, and intentional throughout your argumentation. I have been judging slow debate for a while now and I try my best to be fully attentive during each debate. I will keep a detailed flow of each of the speeches and the cross examinations. In general, I appreciate well-developed arguments and despise late breaking debates where the crux of the affirmative/negative argument appears in the final rebuttal. Blatantly new arguments in the last rebuttals will not be evaluated.

Policy:

I am a stock issues based judge. If the affirmative does not fulfill their burdens under the stock issues, I will vote negative. Conversely, if the affirmative proves to me that they have fulfilled their burden on the stock issues, I will vote for them. What is up for debate, however, is exactly what each side's burden is on the stock issues. For example, if the negative says that the affirmative must solve for the entirety of the Yemen war to establish solvency, then I will hold the affirmative to that threshold (if they do not respond). Although I try to be as neutral as I can in this regard, I personally believe that the affirmative is a good policy option if it makes a significant positive departure from the status quo. That means for the negative, I would appreciate a substantive disadvantage to the affirmative or clearly articulated burdens for each of the stock issues.

I believe argument resolution is underutilized in debates. When judging, I am left with two opposing arguments but no guidance on how to resolve them in your favor. The best debaters utilize framing issues and evidence comparison to write my ballot.

Please be respectful in cross-ex. I understand you may have many questions to get through but cutting off your opponent crosses the line when they have clearly not gotten to the substantive portion of their answer. I will award high speaker points (29-30) to debaters who combine my above thoughts with respectful argumentation/composure in the debate.

I am improving from "Lay" judge status to the "Circuit" judge status , but not there yet . Please do not spread for now and articulate your arguments very clearly for me.

Please also explain jargon. Again, I'm still learning this stuff, so instead of using LD jargon, please use simpler things that I would understand. Deliberate as you will.

I only have judged novice round and lay rounds before so I prefer you to talk slower and construct and explain your arguments well. 

Please don't run any extremely complicated arguments or any arguments that are too "out there"

During your last speech, give clear reasons why you won and why I should vote for you.

I do not prefer speed because I believe that debate should be clear and open to all. I am okay with counter plans and Disads as long as you explain them well. In addition I am okay with critics as long as you have other arguments which have a clear impact. I love framework debate because it tells me what I should weigh the debate on. I recommend candidates to link all arguments back to framework and do lots of impact calculus. I can follow easily but please do not speak too fast to just complete your write up. 

Hey I did speech and policy in high school. Started off with the straight-up style but got to college and saw the rest. I'm better suited for K-style feedback but go with your heart on w.e you want.

I'll evaluate every argument. The debate room can be a fun place so feel free to throw some humor into your speeches. Videos and dank memes are cool.
On an unrelated note, bringing granola bars or some snackage would be appreciated. I don't care much for soft drinks though. In other words please feed me nice food because in-round picnics make everyone's day. <--

What you care about:
Please don't make judges do the work for you on the flow. If you don't do the line-by-line or clearly address an argument, don't get upset if I reach an unfavorable conclusion. Reading me cards without providing sufficient analysis leaves the purpose a bit unclear.

T
Aff- reasonabilty probably has my vote but I can be persuaded to vote for creative and convincing non-topic-related cases.

Neg- Get some substance on the flow. T should not be a go-to-argument. I hate arguments dealing with "should", "USFG", etc and you should too. Impact out the violation. Simply stating that the team is non-topical and attaching some poorly explained standards will not fly or garner support. On K affs remember you can always go further left as an option.

Theory- Typically a pretty boring discussion but if it's creative I'll approve. If you notice yourself thinking "I wish I were reading something else" then it's a clear sign I wish you were too. Remember to slow down on those analytics though- hands cramp.

Case
Aff
Being able to cite authors and point to specific cards = speaks. (same for neg)

Neg
Throw some case defense at the end of your 1nc after you do your off-case arguments. Aff has to answer them but you already know that. Reading through aff evidence and showing power tags or misuse is great.

Da
Aff- if you can turn this in some way then you'll be fine. Point out flaws in the Link story when you can. Figuring out a solid internal link story might be a good idea.

Neg
Internal links will only help you. Let's avoid generic stuff.

CP
Aff
You need to show that it's noncompetitive and you can perm or that their argument just sucks.

Neg
Show a net benefit and how you solve the impacts. Furthermore show how your cp is awesome.

K
Aff
Explain: how case doesn't link, perm, or alt doesn't solve or do anything. Weigh your impacts if appropriate. If the neg is misinterpreting an author and you sufficiently illustrate his/her message, then you'll be doing well in the round.

Neg
I like K's a lot. Hopefully will know what's up. Just explain your story clearly (seriously). Stunt on em.

Side note for everyone: In round actions are easy performative solvency to weigh btw

Performance
Aff
It's going to come down to how well you can explain the impact you are addressing with your performance and the solvency story under framework.

Neg
I suppose you can do framework or T if you have nothing else but try and interact because the aff team will be prepared. Or if you want to go down this route it's cool. Swayed by creativity though.

Lynbrook High School '16
Johns Hopkins Univ '20

Short Version I will vote on anything that is clearly explained to me and not offensive (things like death good are fine, but things like rape or oppression good and/or anything that makes debate an unsafe space will be problematic in front of me, feel free to ask me about this before the round). Ks, theory/T, plans/CPs, larp, phil, performance, extra T - all good. The only thing I'd really rather not see are weird blippy tricks designed to remove any chance of substance from the round (ex: a prioris) - do not read these in front of me or, if you do, explain their function in the round very well. In general, do what you're best at and just explain your arguments and how they interact with your opponents' arguments and the ballot well. Overviews and voter issues are always great for framing the round!

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you hit send on the email. You must provide your opponent access to your case (hard copy, flashing, viewing laptop, emailing, something!) throughout the round. If you would like to include me in an email chain, feel free to do so. Do not steal prep and do not ask me for time to preflow.

If you have questions about my specific feelings on certain arguments, feel free to read below.

Speed

If I didn't catch something on my flow, I'm not voting on it. That being said, I will say slow and clear as many times as necessary without penalty. In general, I'm fairly accustomed to moderate speed, but make sure you're clear and slow down if you're reading dense literature or a lot of quick analytical arguments. I have a fairly low threshold for extensions, but explain the implication of the argument in the round well.

Framework

Make sure you have a clear framing mechanism that tells me how to evaluate the round and what impacts matter. Also, don't just mention it once in the AC and then never again - explain how the arguments in the round interact with it.
I don't care at all about the framework structure - ROB, Value - VC, do whatever you're most comfortable with.
I'm not very well-read in dense philosophy, so make sure to slow down on more dense cards/warrants and clearly explain how your framework functions in the round if you're reading more complex philosophy.

Theory/T

I default competing interps, drop the argument, and no RVIs. However, I don't prefer these or any such thing - they're just how I'll default to evaluating the theory/T debate absent any other arguments. If you make arguments to the contrary, I'll buy them. In fact, I actually lean towards drop the debater and RVIs good on the actual issues; I just need arguments to be made for those more "severe" impacts.
I ran a fair amount of frivolous theory/T, so I don't really care if you run it on actual abuse or strategically. However, make sure you weigh between shells, violations, voters, standards, etc and make the debate clear for me to evaluate rather than muddy.
Slow down on interps and don't throw out a bunch of blippy 8-word arguments at 500 wpm - I won't catch them. Make sure you adjust speed for the fact that theory is often shorter, analytic arguments.

Ks/Critical ACs

I read quite a few critical ACs and some Ks during my career and am definitely a fan of these types of arguments. I'm also totally fine with performance or extra-T Ks. That being said, I'm not very well-read in critical literature, so definitely make sure to slow down when you're reading dense literature and explain your arguments and their implications well in your rebuttals.
Make sure you can clearly explain your alt. Don't conflate the pre and post fiat distinction.

Plans/CPs/DAs

Great! I was always a fan of specificity with your arguments. If you're reading a plan or CP, make sure you can clearly explain the action your plan/CP takes. If you're reading a DA, make sure you can clearly explain the link and uniqueness.
Do a lot of impact analysis!

Tricks

Do not read these in front of me, please. My threshold will be very high if you're just reading blippy arguments meant to precede other arguments so you can get out of clash. If you're reading well-warranted arguments and clearly explain why they precede other arguments, that's totally fine!
If you want to go for the blippy preclusion/definitional arguments in front of me (but why?), make sure the argument is clearly explained & implicated in the original speech (this means explain its purpose/function in the round and what arguments exactly it precedes) and continues to be explained & implicated throughout the round.

Speaks

Good Speaks - Good prep and case-sharing (flashing/emailing/whatever) practices. Good strategical choices. Good explanation & implication of arguments and weighing. Good overviews/voters/framing. In general, making the debate a positive and educational experience for everybody involved.

Bad Speaks - Stealing prep. Being rude. Bad argument explanation, forcing me to intervene to weigh or implicate arguments. Weird tricks that have the sole purpose of preceding substance and avoiding clash.

Other Important Things

As a judge, it is my duty to make debate a safe space that we can all benefit from. Thus, I will not vote on offensive arguments, such as rape good or oppression good. This isn't any attempt to censor your arguments or limit your choices and, 99% of the time, this won't even be relevant in a round, but just want to clarify for the 1%. Feel free to ask me about this before round.
Don't be rude to your opponent, especially if they're less experienced than you. If you are continuously rude, your speaker points will reflect it.
As stated earlier, prep ends when the flash drive leaves your computer or you hit send on the email. Do not steal prep. If you would like to include me in the email chain, feel free to do so. Also, make sure you can provide your opponent with a copy of your case throughout the round, not just in CX or prep or whatever.

Contact Info

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at shailjasomani@gmail.com, send me a message on Facebook, or ask me right before the round.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Background: I debated policy back in high school, but it's been years since then so I would slow down (speed).

K's: OK but it needs to be VERY clearly explained.

T: if you're going for T or theory then voters need to be extended and your case of abuse/potential abuse needs to be articulated.

Flash time counts as prep (policy). Please don't shake my hand.