Lectures
All students will be assigned to attend a skills-based lecture most mornings based on experience level.
Here is the list of covered subjects:
- Establishing Ground: Dissecting Resolutions
- Argument Construction: Claim-Warrant-Impact
- Improving Your Research
- Conceptualizing Casing & Frameworks
- Debating Standards: The Value & Criterion Clash
- Negative Strategies
- Flowing Fundamentals
- Seeing the Flow Game
- 1AR Strategy
- Cross-Examination Techniques
- Crystallization: Weighing & The Comparative Advantage
- Judge Adaptation
- Building Your Ethos: Professionalism, Confidence, & Ethics
Electives
All students will be allowed to self-select an additional eight electives during the main session to attend over the course of camp. Repeaters to UTNIF will get ten electives during this time. Our electives are planned to cover an array of philosophers and trends in LD to recognize the dynamic nature of our activity across the country. We believe our electives this year offer something for everyone, meeting the individualized needs of students with diverse backgrounds, styles, and experience levels from various regions and circuits. Several of the electives on this list will repeat during the third week, giving students who are remaining for the extension additional opportunities to explore their interests.Here are the choices:
- The LD All-Stars (debate philosophy for beginners) by Stacy Thomas
- Immanuel Kant by Garner Lanier
- Importance of the Stock Case by Ryan Lester
- Defending the Social Contract by Dan Jennis
- Shredding the Social Contract by Eric Melin
- Utility vs. Deontology by Eric Melin
- Theories of Justice by Mack Coleman
- International Relations, a two-part series, by Jenn Miller
- Capitalism & Its Critics by Garner Lanier
- Tacit Consent by Dan Jennis
- Elitism & Inequality by Dan Jennis
- Intersubjective Morality by Dan Jennis
- Hannah Arendt by Ryan Lester
- Introduction to Postmodernism by Garner Lanier
- Normativity & the Legal Subject by Andy Werner
- Foucault & Butler by Andy Werner
- Agamben by Andy Werner
- Identity Politics by Mack Coleman
- Third Wave Feminism by Kristen Ray
- Does Discourse Matter? by Kristen Ray
- Answering Confusing Positions by Melanie Plaza
- Offense Per Minute by Eric Melin
- Adapting Critical Arguments for Traditional Circuits by Garner Lanier
- Introduction to Theory by Andy Werner
- Answering Theory: How to Counteract the Whining by Andrew Cockroft
- Truth vs. Comparative Worlds by Andrew Cockroft
- Kritiks by Andrew Cockroft
- Pre-Standards Arguments & No-Risk Outs by Andy Werner
33 comments:
We will be posting descriptions of the electives in the comments.
The LD All-Stars by Stacy Thomas
This is an introductory elective that will survey the foundational philosophy used in Lincoln-Douglas debate and define key ideas (such as the social contract, harms principle, utilitarianism, veil of ignorance, etc.). We will break down LD into two categories: theories on government and theories on morality. You will come away with an outline of the most popular philosophies traditionally used to advance arguments in LD and the most common responses. This survey will focus on breadth and what debaters claim in rounds (rather than a deep look at the truth of these claims) to give you a picture of the scope of LD concepts and how you will see them used. If you are interested in studying any particular thinker or idea in depth, you should choose the elective specializing in that individual or concept. If you are new to LD philosophy, this elective should be an especially helpful beginning.
Pre-Standards Arguments & No-Risk Outs by Andy Werner
Have you ever stayed up at night dreading what would happen if someone were to speed read ten pre-standards arguments that you had to answer in the 1AR? Pre-standards arguments have been quite common in the last few years. The general strategy is to have a cheap argument (or more than one) that your opponent has to answer. If they handle it, there is a time deficit for them (since these no-risk arguments often are underdeveloped and don't require much time to present). If they don't, then, they are supposed to lose. This lecture will attempt to cover how to construct such an argument in a developed manner and how to answer them. We will cover the pros and cons of different strategies (simple coverage, turning, outweighing, theory, etc.). This lecture is for all debaters who see pre-standards arguments in the circuits where they compete.
Giorgio Agamben by Andy Werner
Giorgio Agamben has famously written in his book "Homo Sacer" that "the birth of the camp in our time appears as an event that decisively signals the political space of modernity itself." He develops an account of sovereignty and the human that explores everything from the American civil war to an analysis of Aristotelian and Heideggerian potentiality. In this lecture I will go over the basic concepts of Agamben's theory (bare life, zoç, bios, inclusive exclusion, homo sacer, etc.). I will also discuss some of his attempts to work out a solution to the problem(s) of modernity. Finally I will discuss some criticisms of his work. For debate purposes, Agamben's theory of sovereignty is useful for topics involving the state (and many that don't). However, his works are very dense. This elective will try to best make what Agamben says understandable, but some of it will inevitably be difficult to digest (especially since he is attempting to think his way out of a problem that he thinks is constitutive of his time). Hence, this is an advanced elective for students wanting to explore a complex philosophy where we will learn about a fairly complicated, interesting, and different way to conceptualize sovereignty. The interests of those attending will help guide what we discuss.
We are adding the following elective:
Democracy & Individual Rights
by Alex Ackroyd.
The description for this course and others are coming soon.... Keep checking back for more information.
Offense Per Minute by Eric Melin
This elective operates under the assumption that the perfect speech is one that is as close as possible to being offense in totality. Judges hate when debaters play defense on everything and give them very little to vote on at the end of the round. Whether you have a rapid debating style or not, every debater should be focused on giving themselves as many quality chances to win a round as possible. The goal of this elective is to increase the number of quality offensive arguments coming out within the time-limits of each speech. If you have a slower to moderate presentation style, learning the skills in this elective can help beat back some of the advantage faster debaters seek to get with the spread. Faster debaters will also benefit because they will be able to rapidly present a larger number of arguments that can be used to sway the judge in their favor. We will focus on discussing opportunities for offense in each speech (from the 1AC through the 2AR). Examples will be provided to illustrate implementation of the types of argumentation and techniques that increase your offensive output.
The Foucault & Butler elective is now entitled --
Kant, Foucault, & Butler: an Alternative History of Philosophy by Andy Werner
Description:
The standard story of Immanuel Kant is that he authored the categorical imperative – don't treat another only as a means to your ends. While we will discuss this famous dictum (and other formulations of the categorical imperative), we will relate them as giving birth to an interesting legacy in the form of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, who both understood themselves to be operating at least somewhat in the spirit of Kantianism. We will explore those links. This will be an advanced elective for those already comfortable with basic Kantian ideas. (Students looking for an introduction to Kant or a traditional focus on Kant should take the elective being taught by Garner Lanier.) This elective will explore Kant's theories of judgment and the noumenon (which some see as a precursor to Freud's theory of the unconscious). Some call his theory of judgment his political philosophy, and we will discuss some of the connections it has with his moral philosophy. In doing so, this elective aims to give a more debate applicable Kant – a Kant who is useful for generating a profoundly radical ethical theory that is applicable to different kinds of actors: devils, human, states, etc. We will then trace how Foucault's projects – both his archeology and his genealogy and finally a little on his caring for the self – fall in line with and criticize Kant's project. This will include discussion of ways in which Foucault’s unique appreciation of power is very useful in a debate round. Finally, we will discuss Butler, who sees herself following in both Foucault's and Kant's footsteps with her ethical theory of opaque relationships. She believes that there is no way for the subject to make its relationships to others and itself completely transparent – there is always something left out of any narrative. By exploring this evolution of thought, this elective will help students see how philosophers build upon each other’s ideas (both in terms of what they borrow and what they criticize) to develop an academic dialogue.
Intersubjective Morality by Dan Jennis
Morality is among the most commonly debated subjects in LD. This elective will take an advanced look at the subject and is for experienced debaters, though the material covered can be useful across regions and styles. Some people claim that actions can be objectively right or wrong, that one’s life path can be guided by an unblinking source of Truth. Others claim that morality is relative, that different cultural and personal perspectives mean that one’s notion of right or wrong is no better or worse than anyone else’s competing ethical viewpoint. Intersubjective theories of morality attempt to offer a middle ground when it comes to this highly contested issue. Intersubjective morality recognizes an absolute truth in the right situation. This elective will explore the notion of a “common sense,” a moral sentiment inherent to humans that can serve as a universal guide for our actions. This survey will also examine how intersubjective moral theory can answer critical attacks upon traditional moral perspectives.
Tacit Consent by Dan Jennis
Tacit consent refers to the acceptance of an idea or action via an unwillingness to contest it. Turning your back on a dying person would be tacit consent in the extreme, but there are also insidious and subtle ways in which normally good people can allow bad things to happen. This elective will examine the ideas of those who have criticized human beings on their unwillingness to assert themselves in times of great need. Also included will be an explanation of how tacit consent theory can be used in debate rounds, as well as examples of cases and arguments that have incorporated tacit consent theory. This elective is intended for debaters of all levels and backgrounds interested in exploring the subject.
Defending the Social Contract by Dan Jennis
The Social Contract refers to the agreement made between citizens and government that gives the state the right to rule. This elective is part one of a two-part series on one of the most important and widely used concepts in LD. Part two, “Shredding the Social Contract,” is being taught by Eric Melin. It is highly suggested that you attend part one before attending part two if you don’t have a solid background in the subject. In part two, it will be assumed that students have already been taught what is covered in part one. This first elective will explain the context surrounding the Social Contract, and then delve into the theories of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the three philosophers most commonly associated with the idea. This elective is intended for those students who are fairly new to debate, but it should be helpful for anyone who wants to better be able to defend and to understand every facet of this prevalent, but not fully understood, philosophy.
Shredding the Social Contract by Eric Melin
This elective is part two in a two-part series. It is designed to build off the knowledge of Social Contract theory that debaters gained from part one, “Defending the Social Contract” taught by Dan Jennis. Students who attend part two without attending part one should already have a strong grasp of the Social Contract so that they come into this lesson with the background knowledge upon which this elective will build. We will focus on the major objections to Social Contract theory that you are likely to hear in debate rounds, providing you with arguments you can make against this highly used LD concept and preparing you for what your opponents may say if you advocate this philosophy yourself in a case. These objections will come from a variety of schools of thought and will indict many of the assumptions upon which the philosophy is based.
The Importance of the Stock Case by Ryan Lester
In some debate circuits, it is becoming a commonly held notion that the best debaters are those who run dense, complex philosophers or those who know how to throw out a million theory arguments in addition to their cases. While this works for some people, you can still win rounds debating the resolution. This lecture will discuss how to craft a smart stock LD position. We will look at more advanced case construction and at approaching arguments intelligently while remaining more traditional. It is always a good feeling to watch your opponent pull out blocks to an argument they think they have covered, only to find out that they are answering a general tagline that doesn’t capture the sophistication of your point. This lecture can be helpful for students at all levels who just don't find the world of Derrida and counter-plans all that appealing. Even if you don’t normally run stock positions, you are guaranteed to attend at least one or two tournaments a year where this type of strategy can help you better adapt to your judging pool. Through case examples and discussing the camp resolution, you will learn a very effective and increasingly underutilized strategy that can take your game to the next level.
Hannah Arendt by Ryan Lester
Hannah Arendt is one of the most influential political theorists/philosophers of the 20th Century. She has written many works that cover such topics as totalitarianism, the public and private sphere, and the "banality of evil" to name a few. Her writing is easier to comprehend than most philosophers of her era because she offers many historical examples and uses clear language so that you are very seldom left wondering what she has said. This lecture will introduce students to several of her most important books and essays and give applications to debate for each of them. We also will read an example case using one of her concepts and discuss ways that you can answer some of her arguments. Arendt is accessible and has many applications to LD but is not a philosopher you see often on any circuit, which can play to your advantage.
Elitism and Inequality by Dan Jennis
All around us, our culture is filled with images and symbols that define us as subjects. The cultural practices to which we ascribe, and the ways in which we live our public lives, define us as members of certain social groups. The politics of culture and taste divide citizens into opposing classes, where consumption is a reflection of one’s status. Elitism develops as a result of this socialization process that educates the privileged in matters of taste. In this elective, we will trace various trends in cultural theory that examine the ways in which the notions of “the popular” form and reproduce existing social inequalities. We will discuss how these ideas can be applied to debate when resolutions are concerned with economics, capitalism, and consumerism. Some philosophical knowledge will make this elective easier to understand, although the ideas and examples presented should be helpful and accessible for debaters of all levels.
Introduction to Postmodernism by Garner Lanier
This elective will be great for debaters looking to begin their exposure to postmodern thought. We will address the problems of modernity that are criticized by postmodern philosophers, such as the death of the author, approaches to power structures, the existence of transcendent moral norms, and theories of identity. Students will learn about the intellectual progression to postmodernism, as well as discuss the defense of modernity and enlightenment thought. After understanding the criticism and defense of modernity, debaters will have a better foundation for this line of argumentation. This elective is best for debaters at the intermediate and varsity levels who already feel comfortable with basic LD philosophy but who have not yet delved deeply into critical literature.
Free Market Capitalism & Its Critics by Garner Lanier
Capitalism refers to the modes of production that are privately owned and a relatively free market where supply and demand controls prices. This elective will examine capitalism's ethics and efficiency while discussing the assumptions upon which this economic system is based. In addition to exploring the foundation of capitalism through authors such as Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, we will also discuss criticism of capitalism as advanced by Karl Marx and authors from the Frankfurt School. This elective is recommended for anyone who wants a better understanding of the issues raised by economic questions and to the arguments that relate to them in debate.
Immanuel Kant by Garner Lanier
It goes without saying that a basic understanding of Kant is critical for every Lincoln-Douglas debater. In this elective, we will focus on Kant's "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" where Kant first formulated the categorical imperative (possibly one of the most popular LD concepts of all time). Debaters will learn how to defend Kant's philosophy against critics and will discuss his views on the self, autonomy, freedom, and morality. Additionally, we will examine critics of Kant and how to tear down his moral philosophy. This elective is for any student less familiar with Kant’s work and will be an in-depth introduction to one of the most prevalent of the classic LD philosophers.
Adapting Critical Arguments for Traditional Circuits by Garner Lanier
Sometimes debaters become bored with the commonly seen LD philosophy but hesitate to explore other academic areas that interest them in order to avoid alienating their audience. Sometimes debaters might sacrifice certain arguments solely for the sake of judge adaptation. This elective will explore a different level of judge adaptation that focuses not simply on speaking slower but on packaging arguments so that you can run them in front of a variety of people. This will be most helpful for students who debate in traditional areas but who have an interest in critical literature and more "progressive" positions. This elective will explore strategies for properly adapting critical arguments or different theory arguments for a more conservative circuit.
Normativity and the Legal Subject by Andy Werner
In this elective, we will discuss three theorists: Carl Schmitt, one of the premier jurists for the Nazis; Robert Cover, a Yale Professor who died at a tragically early age; and Pierre Schlag, a University of Colorado Professor who is still alive and teaching. We will start with Schmitt by reviewing his theories on the state of exception and friend/enemy distinction. Then, we will move to Robert Cover and his theory of normative universes that he contends govern everyone's lives. Finally, we will briefly touch on Pierre Schlag's criticism of normativity as providing an illusion through which things like giant multi-national corporations control our experiences. One way to understand this elective is as offering three stances towards normativity: Schmitt, who wants the normal to reign no matter what the cost; Cover, who describes a set of normative universes that all coexist in each of us and who advocates a certain kind of normativity; and Schlag, who (to put it too simplistically) believes a normative standard should be avoided. This is an advanced elective for students who already have some experience with critical positions.
Theories of Justice by Mack Coleman
This elective primarily will examine the ideas of John Rawls and Robert Nozick for a general introduction to how they conceptualize justice. The lecture touches on issues relevant in Rawls’ book "Justice as Fairness" and Nozick’s "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" (a commonly conceived of libertarian answer to Rawls). Rawls attempts to reconcile liberty and equality in a principled way. We are, as Rawls puts it, both rational and reasonable: we have ends we want to achieve, but we are happy to achieve them together – if possible – in accordance with mutually acceptable regulative standards. Nozick argues that a distribution of goods is just so long as the distribution was brought about through free exchanges by consenting adults and was made from a fair starting position, even if large inequalities later emerge from the process. Nozick appeals to the Kantian idea that people should be treated as ends (what he termed “separateness of persons”), not merely as a means. We’ll conclude this elective by also looking at less canonized texts by such authors as Iris Marion Young and John Locke. For basic debate on any circuit, these are ideas with which you simply must be familiar.
Identity Politics by Mack Coleman
Identity politics is political action taken to advance the interests of a group supposed to be oppressed by virtue of shared and marginalized characteristics (such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). The relevance in debate is undeniable for many resolutions. The fundamental question is: Do identity-based social movements/organizations facilitate or inhibit social justice? Even if you never plan to run cases predicated on this issue, it would be a great idea to educate yourself so as to be able to properly respond to the plethora of people who advocate these positions. We’ll look at the origin of identity politics, including literature such as "The Politics of Difference" by Iris Marion Young, "The Ethics of Identity" by Kwame Anthony Appiah, and some sociological studies on the effectiveness of identity-based empowerment. It would be impossible to cover the entirety of this topic in a single sitting. Our goal will be to introduce you to the concept of identity politics, as well as the argumentation and literature on both sides, to provide a starting point for anybody interested in learning more about the subject.
International Relations, Part 1: Keepin’ It Real by Jenn Miller
This elective will introduce students to theories on international relations. Part one of the two-part series will take an in-depth look at Realism, the most widely accepted approach to international relations (and most commonly seen in debate rounds). If you’ve ever wondered how states can seem to make rational decisions that leave the whole world worse off, this is the elective to answer those questions. We will study the assumptions of Realism, examine a wide variety of authors from this school of thought, and discuss how to run Realism in debate rounds. We also will briefly discuss more complex approaches to state decision making and how those interplay with Realism. Students may choose to only attend part one of this series, but it is recommended that they also attend part two (“My Big Mac Saves Lives!”) so that they learn the multiple perspectives present in the IR field. This series should be helpful for any student who needs a strong introduction to international relations so as to better understand resolutions that raise foreign policy issues.
International Relations, Part 2: My Big Mac Saves Lives! by Jenn Miller
In the second part of the international relations series, we will build upon the foundation established in the first session entitled “Keepin’ It Real.” We will discuss how the increasingly globalized economy changes the way in which states interact with each other and if these new rules for interaction create a more or less stable world. We will examine the happy side of globalism – the spreading of democracy, McDonalds…and, slightly less important, peace. We also will discuss why some countries just can’t seem to catch up, and why the developed world would like to keep it that way. Other questions we will explore are: What is the fourth world and can it explain why we can’t all just get along? Does globalizing our economy mean globalizing an economy of war, as well? Students may choose only to attend part two if they already have a strong grasp on the concept of Realism. This second elective will assume students have the knowledge base established in part one of the series. This series should be helpful for any student who needs a strong introduction to international relations so as to better understand resolutions that raise foreign policy issues.
Does Discourse Matter? by Kristen Ray
The importance of "discourse" in debate rounds has been a controversial subject, which is somewhat ironic given that we are a verbal activity. A discursive argument is one made against your opponent to confront the type of language they are using in a round. It is an argument that contests the construction and presentation of other arguments. What place does this kind of challenge have in debate rounds and the debate community at large? How can you incorporate discursive issues into your rounds? What are the benefits and disadvantages of doing so? These are the questions that this elective will attempt to answer. This elective is for varsity or advanced students with a basic understanding of debate theory (see the series being taught by Andy Werner & Andrew Cockroft) and who compete in areas where running theory in rounds is acceptable practice.
Feminism(s): Modern Complexities by Kristen Ray
This elective will look at the emergence of third wave feminism and queer studies as they relate to contemporary conceptions of what it means to be a gendered person in the 21st Century. The discussion will explore modern gender issues with a focus on the works of Judith Butler, Judith Halberstam, and Patrick Califia. We will cover the notions of the construction of gender, female masculinity, transgenderism, ambiguously sexed people, and queerness. This elective is for mature students with an interest in the subject. The material can be used to construct critical positions on appropriate topics when in front of judges who allow for different approaches to the resolution.
Answering Confusing Positions by Melanie Plaza
Have you ever encountered a case position run by your opponent that you couldn't comprehend or even begin to respond to in a round? This can be a problem when debaters use dense philosophy but choose to employ a strategy to purposefully confuse rather than clarify their arguments. If you have experienced this situation or if you foresee this experience in your future, this is a good elective for you. We will discuss ways to more easily understand seemingly complex positions, go over flaws that are common to many of them, and talk about what to do when you have no idea what to do. Then, we'll put these strategies into practice by responding to some confusing positions. Once you know how to deal with debatably the scariest situation you can encounter in a round, you'll be ready for anything next year.
Democracy & Individual Rights by Alex Ackroyd
LD revolves around a few key conflicts that show up every topic, if not every round. One of the most central issues is a concern for rights, how best to protect them, and how much they deserve that protection. In this elective for beginning and intermediate students, we will survey the major theories concerning rights (positive v. negative, natural rights, social rights, etc.) and the various systems created to protect them with an emphasis on democracies. This elective is intended not only to describe but to dissect the validity of each of these concepts through an overview of the heavyweight authors within each body of thought with attention to debate application. Many debaters mishandle and gloss over concerns regarding rights and democracy in round with magic words like "inherent worth" and "majority rule with minority rights." This can lead to vague debates where clash is not well defined. With the knowledge you'll have coming out of this elective, you'll be able to capitalize on the assumptions that make the difference between two ships passing in the night and a clear ballot.
Utility vs. Deontology: Is It the Journey or Destination that Counts? by Eric Melin
Lincoln-Douglas debate often revolves around the inherent tension between two formulations of morality: utilitarianism and deontology. This is not a new occurrence but an historical trend that has focused the clash in rounds for years and continues to do so today. Moving from theory to practice, this elective will explore the meat of both concepts, provide a summary of the authors who advocate them, and discuss their common uses in debate. We will cover how to deconstruct and categorize standards so that you can indict their implicit assumptions and solidify their function in the round. Students debating at both the local and national levels absolutely will run into positions that are based on ideas grounded in these two philosophical approaches. No matter your region or style, this elective will cover information that is foundational for any LD competitor.
Kritiks by Andrew Cockroft
Have you ever walked into a round thinking it is going to be a normal debate, and instead your opponent surprises you with a kritik that challenges some assumption in the resolution? This elective will explain what a kritik is and how to deal with one in rounds. We will read some kritiks, discuss how to answer them, and review all there necessary parts. We also will cover the different kinds of kritiks – including positions that are more like “critiques” than “kritiks” – how to handle them, and when one should run these. This elective is intended for all students who already have a strong grasp on basic case construction and who want to know more about the function of kritiks. Kritiks have become commonplace on some circuits and are now seen at almost any level of debate.
Truth v. Comparative Worlds by Andrew Cockroft
A trend has begun in LD to regard the resolution solely as a statement of truth to be tested for its logical consistency rather than as a statement that divides ground for two competing philosophical worlds or courses of action. These different approaches to the resolution have been publically discussed very recently by many prominent members of our community. These issues are likely to prove highly relevant to how debate will evolve over the next year. In this elective, we will discuss the ways to view the resolution, examining both the pros and cons of different approaches. We also will discuss how to formulate cases to appeal to all interpretation of how the resolution ought to be evaluated. This is an advanced elective for those looking to compete on the national circuit next year or looking to understand judge paradigms at a deeper level.
Theory, Part 1: An Introduction by Andy Werner
Theory debate, not to be confused with debating philosophy, can be described as “debate about debate” or the metadebate in that it engages in a discussion during rounds about the “proper” rules for our activity. This elective is part one in a two-part series. Part two is the elective “Answering Theory: How to Counteract the Whining” being offered by Andrew Cockroft. It is highly suggested that you attend part one before attending part two, especially if you don’t have a solid background in the subject. In part two, it will be assumed that students have already been taught what is covered in part one. This first elective will cover the basics of what debaters call theory – those arguments about the nature of debate and how it works (e.g. the fact that the affirmative has to be topical or talk about the resolution). These arguments were imported from policy debate, which makes them controversial in some more traditional regions or in front of some judges. In this elective, we will learn the proper structure of a theory argument. We will then cover some examples and the different types of theory arguments that are made. This elective will close with a group discussion on whether or not theory (defined as the ability to discuss the rules of debate within an actual debate round) is good for LD. Does theory check abusive arguments (for instance, an affirmative that didn't talk about the resolution) in a way that is vital for debate to continue? Does it itself serve as a way of abusing opponents (since many theory arguments are made such that if the person introducing the issue wins the discussion they win the round prior to examining any case arguments)? These questions will be raised to encourage your own critical thought about what we do.
Answering Theory, Part 2: How to Counteract the Whining by Andrew Cockroft
This is the second elective in a two-part series. Students are strongly advised to take part one (“Theory: An Introduction” by Andy Werner) before attending part two. Only students who are already well-informed about theory and experienced with it in rounds may attend part two alone. This second elective is fairly straightforward. As the title suggests, we will discuss how debate theory can be dealt with in a persuasive and strategic fashion when it is run against you in rounds. We will discuss how to deal with theory debate on multiple levels, i.e. taking out the standards, the voter, preclusion, turning, etc. In doing so, we will discover why people sometimes feel the need to run theory. As such, we will cover other ways to combat such arguments that people believe necessitate theory, such as pre-standards dumps or cases that seem to provide no ground for the opponent. This elective will challenge the place of theory in rounds.
We have added one final elective. This now completes our elective course descriptions.
Here is the newly added (and last) elective:
Why Skepticism? by Andrew Cockroft
The national debate circuit has seen the rising popularity of what some call “skeptical” arguments, i.e. positions that question the existence of morality, justice, normativity, or even truth itself. The common perception is that these arguments are all the same and that they can be infinitely regressive. This elective will deal with the characteristics of these arguments and how to run them properly. We also will discuss the multiple reasons why they are objectionable or the reasons some would reject them from the activity entirely. Most of our time will be spent on answering these arguments in multiple ways. If you want to win rounds because your opponent has fallen into the trap of running “skeptical arguments” against you, then attend this varsity-level elective to learn how to turn these ideas to your advantage.
Post a Comment