Overing,+Michael

I am Head Coach at Loyola High School in Los Angeles. I have judged hundreds if not thousands of debate rounds. [updated: February 20, 2018].

So long as your arguments are not philosophically repugnant, I expect arguments, interpretations, frameworks and other positions that intentionally exclude your opponent's offense. **Simple Ballot Strategy**: Tell me 1) what argument you won; 2) why you won it; and 3) why that means you win the round. **Repeat**.


 * Parsimony, relevance and path of least resistance:** I am a critic of argument. I am very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative in how you do it. Assertions without warrants mean very little to me and invites me to supply meaning to positions if you do not articulate what you mean. I look at the flow and ask, "to vote aff, what does the aff have to win?" ... and ... "to vote neg, what does neg have to win?" from there, I look at each of the arguments, evidence, and how well each side has put the issues together in a bigger picture. Most times, the simpler explanation (that takes into account and explains away the opposition) is likely to carry the day. The longer the argument chain, the more effort it takes to evaluate it, the easier it is to vote against you.


 * __Full Case Disclosure Should Be Mandatory__: Hiding your case is an excuse for bad debating and if you can't win without a trick, maybe you should rethink your strategy.** I may have **(some, slight)** sympathy for not disclosing before you break new, **but very little.**


 * RVIs and Reverse Voter Standards**: Fewer better explained standards are better than 20 blips.


 * Theory, rightly, checks abuses**. Articulate the violation, standard and remedy. Actual demonstrated inround abuse is far more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.


 * Cross-Ex:** I flow CX. I don't mind additional questioning during prep. I see little to no benefit to arguing in CX. Please refer to CX responses in your speeches.


 * Rebuttals:** Let's admit that all debaters make new responses in rebuttals. Let's admit that new arguments are permissible when they are extensions of prior positions or answer to args by the opposition.


 * Win/loss/Points Disclosures:** If I don't volunteer the information, please ask me. All good judges disclose.


 * Judges should be accountable for their decisions.** Ask questions. How else do you learn what I was thinking in the round? How can can you improve in front of me? That said, I will follow the tournament's rules regarding disclosure. Also **know, that I will be arguing behind the scenes in favor of disclosure**. I will do my level best to answer your questions in a clear and concise manner; I may not see the round you did and maybe we can both learn from an after-round discussion.

That's the best I can promise.