Thursday, July 5: Day 2 of the Tournament

On Thursday, students in the BC lab put their new and improved skills on display in the final three preliminary rounds of the camp tournament. Many of the judges were quite impressed with the technical proficiency and argumentative sophistication of the BC lab students. Louis Paine, in particular, shot out of the gates quickly going 4-0. As I write this, Babb is delivering a lecture on impact scenarios, and soon, students will prepare to debate the final prelim. Updates will follow tomorrow...

Wednesday, July 4: The Tournament Begins

On this festive (and thankfully, dry) Fourth of July, the tournament began with rounds 1 and 2 in the morning and afternoon. Many of the judges in the pool praised the BC students for excellent speeches, and Todd Liipfert was singled out for an especially good negative round. Apparently, he has been listening to more than it would seem during lab (just kidding, Todd). For lunch, everyone enjoyed a fine meal together at Taco Cabana's, and in the evening, students were able to relax, see a movie, and catch a fireworks display on the UNT campus. Round 3 begins bright and early tomorrow morning...

Tuesday, July 3:The Lab Squares Off

The afternoon discussion in the BC lab focused on how to answer confusing or intimidating positions. Students learned the importance of pinning their opponent down in CX and engaging the arguments intellectually rather than dismissing them out of hand. Several cases of notoriety were read so that everyone could put newly-learned skills on display. In the evening, things turned personal. Students split up into two teams and competed in a tag-team debate, which was judged by two students and a visiting coach. On a 3-0 decision, the affirmative team of Danielle Smogard, William Hix, Ryan Bennett, Arti Bhatia, and Shadman Zaman defeated the negative team of Rahim Sayani, Todd Liipfert, Henry Curtis, Louis Paine, and Jessie Risman.

Monday, July 2: Digging In, Closing Doors

Monday started the week in all the right ways. The morning and early afternoon gave all of our students an opportunity to hold practice rounds against students in Chetan Hertzig and Josh Anderson lab. Despite the general rustiness one usually sees with workshop practice rounds, there was some pretty solid debate going on. The students made us proud!  Later on, our lab had a couple of discussions. Neil talked to the lab about the second negative rebuttal and how to take the straightforward "line-by-line" and crystallization to all new levels of strategic sophistication. Babb followed up by investigating the "strategies of persuasion" with the lab, reminding them that persuasion was MORE (and not less) important in advanced rounds. And, as it should go without saying by now, there was more rain. I've become pretty convinced that we are now in a really damp Twilight Zone. We'd like to sends props the way of Shadman Zaman. Neil watched him in a practice round and was impressed on a number of levels. Perhaps most worthy of note, Shadman is said to have actually answered some warrants. There is hope after all.

Sunday, July 1: And They're Off!

On Sunday, students in the BC lab enjoyed a free morning that allowed them to visit with friends and family, attend religious services, or catch up on sleep. After lunch, practice rounds began in earnest with debaters from the BC and HA labs facing off in front of judges including Josh Anderson, Chetan Hertzig, and Aaron Timmons. After dinner, the lab met to discuss their practice rounds from earlier in the day and to prepare more "blocks" to common arguments on both sides of the resolution.

Saturday, June 30: I Will Survive!

On Saturday, students in the BC lab began the morning session with a discussion of 1AR pitfalls and ways to avoid them by effectively using cross-examination to set up the rebuttal. Then, students shifted to an critical examination of the final article, which laid out Henry Shue's argument for ensuring that basic subsistence rights be met across the world. After lunch, students reconvened to review the advanced mechanics of giving a 1AR that not only ensures the affirmative's survival for the 2AR but limits the opportunities the negative has to win in the 2NR. As the students fondly recall, great debaters "close doors." Following the seminar, students gave 1ARs against a thorough negative spread in front of the lab. Henry Curtis deserves special recognition for giving a great speech that showed much perseverance. After lab, several of the students met with their lab leaders to go over case revisions on the day before the start of practice rounds.

Friday, June 29: Destroying the Position

On Friday, the morning session of the BC lab began with a drill involving a negative case from the 2006 Greenhill Round Robin. The case demonstrated how to give a devastating first negative speech by layering argumentation and eviscerating the components of the affirmative case. After a discussion of how to layer refutation, students implemented what they had learned in a drill intended to produce diversified argumentation. Students also had an opportunity to prepare answers to common negative arguments, and they received cases with substantial revisions. After lab, they were rewarded with free time during which several of the students...played "Air Guitar." We'd like to recognize Danielle Smogard, who gave a tremendous 1nr that incorporated many of the suggestions made by her lab leaders during the morning and afternoon sessions.