Do,+Hanh

==I have been an adjudicator on the local, state, and national circuits for the past 21 years from the middle school to collegiate level. In addition to that, I have previously assistant coached and also been a consultant to many teams and individuals with varying level of successes, as well as been a camp instructor in debate, platforms, and other individual events.==

==With all this said, I don’t games play in any type of debate because my graduate degree is in education, specifically in curriculum and instruction, and as debaters, I think you are always a model at some point, whether to your teammates or spectators, you still are teaching someone something at one time or another, thus, to me, it is pointless to games play.==

==Secondly, this is a communication event and if you do not adjust accordingly your volume, clarity, or speed to your adjudicators, you are doing yourself and/or your team a great disservice. If I don’t hear it clearly, it does not get flowed. Don’t sacrifice your clarity for speed please.==

==Thirdly, I DO NOT like to intervene on a ballot unless I am forced to do so because the debaters created a hot mess in the round. If debaters keep the narrative clear and focused along with their arguments properly formatted with claim, link, and impact, there should not be a hot mess. Make sure you and your partner have the same strategy set going in. This allows you to ballot more successfully. If it does turn messy, reset the round and tell your judges, “Let’s refocus the debate.” You can reset anytime and if you can read a judge or know when you stopped understanding your opponent, more than likely, your adjudicator(s) are confused too.==

==Many judges have not or had time to read the literature. Make sure what you present makes sense in the time sense allotted and don’t assume the audience’s knowledge. Granted, this is my full time career, but even then, I am no expert and invalidating an author (and your opponent) by stating that his or her literature contradicts his or herself, still does not qualify as substantially attacking or invalidating the argument. You still have to follow the format of an argument (with claim/links/warrants, impact), present the proper evidence, and do the work. I am not, nor should any judge, do the work for you on your links and analysis.==

==Whether in CX, LD, PF, WSD, or Parli, I think the best way you can ballot from me is having a clear framework and narrative. For you to win, DO NOT OVERCOMPLICATE things. I do not need to wade through three perms, three Ks, CPs, multiple scenarios, and alternatives in one sitting. Keep it simple for the win. Some of the top teams and debaters don’t function on anything but solid basics and DEBATING the topic. Strategize, keep it clean, evaluate what is most important, and do you. Generic argumentation does not make your opponent, you, or myself better at this craft.==

==In CX and LD, I hate Ks. I despise them in fact even after being a collegiate debater because the Ks have changed so much since 20 years ago. I think Ks are trendy and to me are so niche to apply that you really need to know your judge and what you are doing to do it right. Most of the time, it is arduous and painful so based upon my experience over the years, debaters have made me dislike the K. If you want to be progressive, get into the depth of the topic and spin it with strategy from your approach but let's look at the reality of things. If you want me to view things through a certain lens, ie policy vs philosophically, justify why we ought to view it through that particular lens in relation to the resolution or motion. Performative Ks, depending on how it is done needs to be thought provoking and not annoying or distracting and have a clear purpose. In CX, I like being a stocks judge and/or a policymaker. I was a tab judge until debaters made me hate myself for saying that and certainly not a games player.==

==I am far more traditional in LD of having a philosophical debate. With that in mind, framework debates are fine to have, policy debates in LD are NOT necessary unless the resolution deems it necessary to evaluate it under a policy framework that is justified to me. I don’t mind blending progressive and traditional LD debate and it can be done. I am a big fan when it is done right. If you are going to spend any justifiable amount of time on something, it is going to be your framework and narratives. Groundwork when solidly built is awesome to stand back and look at from a judges perspective.==

==Most of all, have a good time and please don’t be rude. There is so much more outside of winning debate rounds. Even if you lose, that is an experience to learn from and once you stop learning, you stop progressing. This event is designed for you to extract certain functions out of it to make you a better speaker, writer, researcher, and a better human being and citizen to the world. Best of luck in your debating careers!!==