Thursday, June 28: Embracing the Positional Take-Out

On Thursday, the students in the BC lab began the morning session by flowing an affirmative case from the 2005 TOC elims. They then had a few minutes to prepare the first part of a rebuttal, which focused exclusively on undermining the viability of the case position as a whole. In other words, students were discouraged from focusing on specific arguments in the constructive and found success by distancing themselves from the flow. Though some students were initially unfamiliar with this type of refutation, all of them left lab with a better understanding of layering their argumentation. During the afternoon, students were given more time to research in the library, revise their cases, and work on preparing answers to common positions. In the evening session, the lab participated in a lively discussion of the nuances and ethics associated with the cutting process. Though it was his birthday, Rahim "The Dream" Sayani certainly didn't take the day off; in fact, he gave an excellent positional take-out speech and made John Rawls proud by vigorously defending the truth of A Theory of Justice.

Wednesday, June 27: Crafting the Position

On Wednesday, students began the BC lab experience with a flowing and argument comprehension exercise involving a case run in the elims of the 2004 Glenbrooks tournament. Though the case dealt with a different topic, it provided useful guidance on how to craft a sound position with a persuasive, strategic framework. Afterwards, Tyler Traub volunteered to read his affirmative case and graciously allowed other students in the lab to cross-examine him for nearly forty-five minutes (and one thinks withstanding three minutes is difficult!). William Hix was the first to go and executed very well throughout the drill. We'd like to thank Tyler and Will for being the first to speak in front of the lab and for holding their own against each other during the cross-examination period. After working on commanding a presence, understanding the position, and setting up the rebuttal throughout cross-examination, the students left for article groups. When they returned, they had another opportunity to research the topic, accumulate more evidence, and revise their cases. Finally, the evening lab ended with a discussion of affirmative strategy. Students noted that given the difficulty of answering all the many negative arguments on the topic that examine the consequences of U.S. actions intended to promote labor standards at the expense of economic gains, it could be strategic to craft a position that focused more on the means of achieving those ends. Much is left to be done, but everyone in the BC lab is keeping up and developing a better understanding of the topic with each passing session.

Tuesday, June 26

On Tuesday, the students in Neil and Babb's lab enjoyed a variety of discussions in preparation for the case positions they must turn in on Wednesday and Thursday. The morning began with analysis of a case used at the TOC, with particular emphasis on how that case used a "framework." In addition, the lab debriefed regarding Monday night's demonstration debate between Liz Mullins and Shane O'Niel. Our afternoon session featured Babb continuing a talk about the intricacies of frameworks, followed by Neil's seminar on standards for advanced debaters. The day was capped off by a group dialogue about various negative positions and, of course, by the endless, godforsaken rain. Never have I (Babb) felt like such a sponge. For Tuesday, we wanted to acknowledge and thank Ryan Bennett for setting the bar in terms of lab participation. Ryan continues to contribute strong ideas, excellent answers to questions, and insightful analysis. Thus far, Neil and I feel very fortunate and excited to have such an engaged group of students. They make our job easy. We also appreciate the "chalkboard portraits" of us... sort of. The beat goes on!

Monday, June 25: And It Begins...

The first full lab session in the Babb/Conrad (BC) lab began with a flowing and argument comprehension drill involving an affirmative case from the elimination rounds of the 2007 TOC. The drill was followed by a discussion of how to construct a case position that encourages technically proficient debaters to exploit all the tools of effective line-by-line debate while never sacrificing argument quality in a more substantive sense. To that end, students disclosed the content of their first assignment (assigned Sunday night): a position list that included possible frameworks/interpretations and contention arguments for both sides of the resolution. The ensuing discussion greatly increased students' exposure to the many varieties of cases available to them (and their opponents) on the topic. We'd like to commend Vivian Ho for submitting an especially good position list. After lunch, students headed to the library for the first major research session of camp. Once in the library, they began compiling the evidence that will be integral to their success over the next two weeks. Finally, students participated in a critical reading activity that revolved around an article discussing several controversies associated with labor standards. The article presented both arguments for and against the promotion of labor standards and evaluated several issues related to the economic and normative dimensions of the camp topic (Resolved: In its trade agreements, the U.S. ought to value the welfare of workers in developing countries over its own economic gains.). Before dinner, students were assigned an evidence assignment due tomorrow morning. If today is any indication, the quality of the BC lab experience will be phenomenal for both students and lab leaders alike.