Harrison,+Jana

Head Policy & LD Debate Coach 10 years
 * Jana Harrison **

215 W Danforth Rd Edmond, OK 73003
 * Edmond **** North High School **

UTNIF LD Extension Coordinator, 2 years UTNIF LD Staff Member, 4 years Former UCO debater (coached by: Doug Duke, Jan Hovden, Matt Moore, Bryan Gaston) Former Santa Fe debater (coached by: Allen Dobbs) ENHS Assistant Coaches: Martin Glendinning (ENHS), Matthew Cave (OU), Kaitlyn Pruitt (OU)

Last Updated 10-23-15 Paradigms for both styles of debate below…


 * __ LD Paradigm __** :

__**15 minutes before the round:**__ You just saw I was from Oklahoma and panicked. It's okay. I got you. My kids compete in the regional area, so we've been to Grapevine, Greenhill, St. Marks, UT, UNT, Kansas City and OKC. I believe in flowing on paper, not because the computers are tricksy, but because if this is about to be a good debate then I don't want to be distracted by facebook. There's nothing you are going to say in this debate that would EVER cause me to write on your ballot, "this isn't how LD is supposed to be" or "you sound too much like a policy debater" or "this isn't as awesome as the good old days." Here are some fancy words that mean the same thing:

I don't have any pre-disposition for/against the following: theory, theory spikes, burdens, pre-standards, post-standards that you called pre-standards because you didn't know what to label them, truth testing, comparative worlds, kritikal affs or negs, performativity, methodology, Ks of the game, Ks of the state, Ks of the K, etc...Do what you want to win the round and as long as it is well warranted, I'll vote for it. I judge in a blend of traditional/progressive circuits. While my kids mostly stay on an NFL circuit, I have seen plenty of circuit debates. Because I am a policy coach as well, you can run off case positions or kick portions of the case or value/criterion in order to win the round. I am comfortable voting beyond traditional standards as long as there's a role for the ballot presented. I am fairly well read in philosophy as well, so don't worry, I am familiar with ontology, flat ontology, genealogy, epistemology and whatever being.

__** More specifics **__

VALUE/STANDARDS/FRAMEWORK

By default if nothing is specified for me I will look to standards/framework first in LD. After that it is impact comparison between claims. These terms have come to mean a variety of different things to different teams. If you offer a value/criterion/standard, I place the expectation that you should be best using/achieving it in the round. In other words, I don't need you to have one, but if you do have them, you need to win they link back to the resolution. The best standards in the round are ones justified with appropriate framing that give scope to the resolution and clearly define ground. I have no problem with debaters that kick standards as long as there is another component in the debate that is assessed as a reason to vote, ie an a priori, pre-standard, or theoretical claim.

I DO NOT believe you have to defend all contentions to win a debate.

TRUTH TESTING VS. POLICYMAKING I don't have a strong preference either way. I am mostly compelled by arguments that are grounded in resolution specific literature, however, a few hours talking to Monica Ghosh, I actually respect the logic that goes into truth testing arguments. I'll buy them and I am growing quite fond of them.

OFF CASE

Mmmk. Fine with me. I do not believe you have to have a negative case to win the debate. I don't care whether or not a debater has a case, as long as there's offense presented for the neg.

THEORY Sounds fine to me. Run whatever argument you want. I do require theory to have standards and voting issues. That being said, I also think theory is impossible to debate if you've never had experience with it. While this may be contradictory, I am sympathetic to a debater who doesn't know how to answer theory in the correct "format" and I will give their argument weight as the best I can when sorting a theory flow. In other words, I place a higher burden on the person running theory to win it, rather than on the person who is defending against it.

AFF THEORY Are you really still reading this?

Maybe you should check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYey8ntlK_E

CPs Love them, but I need them to have some type of net benefit or comparative advantage over the AC. I need counterplans to establish exclusivity or clear competitiveness with the AC, I don't buy counterplans that only "solve as good as the aff" because they just wash the offense in the debate. Absent exclusivity or net benefit, counterplans aren't competitive enough to win.

30-best debater at that particular tournament, or I perceive you should be in late out rounds 29-you should be in out rounds 28-you are doing great, I would expect you to have a winning record 27-you have emerging skills 26-you are new but show developing skills 25-I'm clearly angry with you 24-We are in a current screaming battle in an RFD and I am going to keep dropping points until you quit talking.
 * __ Speaker Points: __**

//***Half points and tenth points**//: I give half points to break ties between two speakers who I perceive are at the same level. I don't believe in tenth points in LD debates, there are only two debaters in the round, half points are enough to break a tie.


 * __ Policy Paradigm __** :

__**15 minutes before the round**__

I primarily judge in Oklahoma, which means I come from the land of 1 off debate. My students have competed at Greenhill, Grapevine, St. Mark's, UT, UNT, KCKCC and OKC. I am comfortable with very traditional policy affs and counterplans or politics DAs or all kinds of K affs or K negs. It doesn't matter, give clear roles for the ballot and present offense and you'll win the debate. I don't mind voting on theory, which to some means I have a "lower" threshold on it. Doesn't mean I am in love with theory, but I love the strategy in debate, so strategies that are specific, warranted, and researched are what I love to vote for most.

T/THEORY/PROCEDURALS- I am willing to listen to these. I generically accept that affirmatives should have some kind of relationship to the topic. I tend to buy arguments that relate to education at some level, as my default is that debate is a combination of advocacy skills and education. I would also default to the idea that the negative has some sympathy or leeway in claiming that they should have reciprocal ground in any discussion. All that being said, I would be willing to listen to warranted reasons why an aff has the right to refuse to engage the topic. And I won't automatically assume that it's the aff's responsibility to provide debatable ground. I tend to believe that debate is a strategy game, so almost all arguments are conditional. The extent of what you do with this information is solely up to you.

CP- I doubt there's anything I can say here that will be of interest to you. Just assume I'm fine with your counterplan, shady or otherwise. Have good theory to defend it.

DA's See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalYJacOhpo

CASE NEG Yup. Good job. You keep that up.

K'S (NON-PERFORMANCE) Like 'em. I generically buy that 90% of the time the affirmative links in some way to the K. That can be an advantage or disadvantage for the neg. If the only links in the debate are "you use the state and that's bad" then I am more sympathetic to aff's claims that the K is generic or that "this instance of state power" is acceptable. In other words, if the link is generic, there tends to be better risk that the aff could be an instance of exception that should be done regardless of the link. Winning K debates, to me, means winning specific instances of the AC that violate the K. Yup, neg block, I'd like to hear more than your pre-scripted overview, and more of what cards, advantages, authors, etc...from the affirmative that link into the K. Along these lines, neg's should be winning the world of the alternative as some type of comparative advantage over the AC. And if the neg isn't specific in the alternative, then I buy arguments that the case functions as a DA to the ALT.

K'S OF THE PERFORMANCE OR "CHANGE THE GAME" METHODOLOGY: In most instances when these aren't in the debate, I would consider my role as a judge to be someone who is "tabula rasa.". In the instance of performance Ks or I feel like the personal nature of the arguments means that I come to the table with experiences that are relevant in how I sort out the round. There's not a way to define this in a simple paradigm. It is impossible for me to describe my person such that I will or won't be able to identify with your methodology. So here's what I can say.

This debate, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFbQftMe6qY

along with a culmination of years of experience in this activity has led me to understand that there are days when this activity makes us all seem insensitive and there are days when really good transformative stuff occurs. I would much rather be a part of a community that is self-reflexive and changing, than one that is closed-minded and unwilling to accept that debate may change. So play your music, spit your rhymes, or stand in silent protest. However, I'll be happy to vote on framework debates to answer these types of affs, that goes back to my love for a good theory debate, I just don't automatically assume sympathy for a team who has to listen to an argument that is presented in a way different than what they expect is the norm.

Bottom line, what we do in debate rounds matters. You are responsible for everything you say or defend in a round, so be prepared to defend your claims, and I promise I will do my best to keep listening, even if what you say is contrary to what I believe is true.

30-best debater at that particular tournament, or I perceive you should be in late out rounds 29-you should be in out rounds 28-you are doing great, I would expect you to have a winning record 27-you have emerging skills 26-you are new but show developing skills 25-I'm clearly angry with you 24-We are in a current screaming battle in an RFD and I am going to keep dropping points until you quit talking.
 * __ Speaker Points: __**

//***Half points and tenth points**//: I give half points to break ties between two speakers who I perceive are at the same level. From that point, I use tenth points to break ties between multiple speakers at the same level. For example, if there are 3 debaters in the round that I perceive are at the '27' level, then I will break the tie by giving one speaker a 27, the next a 27.2 and the next a 27.4.