We are excited to announce our camp lectures and elective modules for 2009!
Lectures
All students will be required to attend a skills-based lecture most mornings, which will be presented 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
• Crystallization & Weighing
• Judge Adaptation
• Building Your Ethos: Professionalism, Confidence, & Ethics
Electives
In addition to the required skills-based lectures, all students will be allowed to self-select elective modules during the main session to attend over the course of camp. 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.
**Course descriptions for each of the elective modules will be posted as comments to this thread over the next few days. Students also will be given a printed course packet that includes all of this information at camp registration.**
Here are the choices:
• The LD All-Stars by Stacy Thomas
• Preparing for a Winning Tournament by Perry Beard
• Immanuel Kant by Garner Lanier
• Social Contract, Part 1: Understanding & Defending It by Dan Jennis
• Social Contract, Part 2: Shredding It by Eric Melin
• Utility vs. Deontology: Is It the Journey or Destination? by Eric Melin
• Rawls & Nozick by Josh Aguilar
• Individual Rights by Chetan Hertzig
• International Relations, Part 1: Keepin’ It Real by Jenn Miller
• International Relations, Part 2: My Big Mac Saves Lives! by Jenn Miller
• Political Transitions by Dan Jennis
• Economics of Public Policy by Dan Jennis
• Turns 101 by Josh Aguilar
• Extensions 101 by Chetan Hertzig
• The UIL Advantage by Tyler Cook
• Intersubjective Morality by Dan Jennis
• Introduction to Postmodernism by Garner Lanier
• Theory, Part 1: An Introduction by Garner Lanier
• Theory, Part 2: How to Answer It by Ryan Bennett
• Kritiks by Andrew Cockroft
• Pre-Standards Arguments & No-Risk Outs by Andrew Cockroft
• Truth-Testing vs. Comparative Worlds by Andrew Cockroft
• Defending Comparative Positions by Chetan Hertzig
• Biopower by Garner Lanier
• Neitzsche & The Will to Power by Ryan Bennett
• Ethics of Care by Ryan Bennett
• Feminism(s) by Stacy Thomas
• Why Skepticism? by Andrew Cockroft
• Nontraditional Ballot Stories by Ryan Bennett
• Answering Confusing Positions by Tyler Cook
• Tips for the Underdog by Jessie Stellmach
• I Want to Help My Novices: Being a Team Leader by Stacy Thomas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
38 comments:
The LD All-Stars by Stacy Thomas:
This is an introductory elective that surveys the foundational philosophy used in Lincoln-Douglas debate. The goal will be to familiarize students who are newer to the activity with key ideas they will encounter in rounds. We will define common philosophical terms often seen in debate (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 deeper 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.
Individual Rights by Chetan Hertzig
The concept of individual rights is fundamental to LD, as it applies to almost every resolution. This elective examines various types of rights (natural, negative, positive, civil, human), including the Enlightenment-based origins of rights theory, as well as legal manifestations of those principles. Our focus will be on using rights-based concepts in LD: where they come up, how to recognize them, and how to use them effectively in case-writing. Additionally, we will discuss ways to weigh between different rights when they are in conflict. This elective is geared towards novice and intermediate debaters who want a more solid grasp on issues related to individual rights.
What is the limit on the number of electives you can take?
Thanks
I'm still working on finalizing the schedule and will know the exact answer in a day or two. Last year, it was 8 electives in main session and 3 during extension. I'm guessing it will be similar this year. Once I know for sure, I'll post here.
I have finalized the number of electives for 2009. Like last year, students will be able to take 8 electives during the main session. Students staying for the extension will get an additional 3 electives.
We are also adding an elective to our list on counterplans. This elective will be taught by Kiwi Gupta, a 2008 Dulles graduate, who is joining UTNIF as a lab assistant and judge during our second week.
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.
Extensions 101 by Chetan Hertzig
In many rounds, debaters find that their opponents have dropped important arguments but struggle to explain how those arguments affect the outcome of the round. The art of extending an argument entails more than mere repetition of the original claim; it also involves re-establishing the warrant and using the impacts strategically. In this elective, we will discuss the difference between repeating an argument and extending it, examine effective extensions from old cases, partake in the extension-writing process as a group, and practice extension-writing individually. While students will work on extensions in labs and during practice rounds at camp, this elective will take an intensive focus for those debaters wanting additional work on this skill area so crucial to winning rounds. This elective is appropriate for students at all ability levels who wish to learn more about extensions (what they are and how to write them).
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 by challenging some assumption in the resolution? This kritik approach to debate has become commonplace on some circuits, both at local and national levels. 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 their 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 varsity students who already have a strong grasp on basic case construction and who want to know more about the function of kritiks.
Feminism(s) by Stacy Thomas
What is a feminist? Are all of the rumors of combat boots and lighting bras on fire true? Find out the answers to these questions and more in this elective, which will explain first, second, and third wave feminism, and discuss the main authors and theories to emerge from each movement. We will explore how the historical development of feminism coincides with the historical development of philosophy from the Enlightenment to postmodernism. Don’t be fooled into thinking you know what feminists believe. This is a diverse and dynamic field with a variety of debate applications. Come explore what there is to learn beyond the stereotypes. This elective will be informative for anybody who would like to learn about gender studies; however, the debate applications are more for varsity students.
I Want to Help My Novices: Being a Team Leader by Stacy Thomas
Every year at camp, we are asked by our students how they can take back the lessons they have learned at UTNIF to support those on their teams who were unable to attend a summer institute or who will be new to their programs. It makes us proud that so many of our campers are entrusted with these leadership roles, so this elective has been designed for you. We will discuss ways to approach helping novices for those who will be assigned this task once they return to school. You will be provided with materials you can bring back to your team and given advice on instructional and encouragement strategies that you can employ in peer-to-peer learning situations. Knowing debate is not the same as helping others learn debate. We will discuss the differences. If you have attempted to help novices in the past, but struggled with being effective, you also will have a chance to get your questions answered on how to improve your approach.
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. This is an advanced elective for students wanting to learn how to turn these ideas to their advantage.
Defending Comparative Positions by Chetan Hertzig
In recent years, national circuit LD has seen a drastic increase in the truth-testing model of debate – an approach that treats resolutions as propositions of fact and places a greater burden of proof on the affirmative debater. However, many competitors and judges adhere to the comparative worlds model of debate, which treats resolutions as propositions of value, placing equal burdens of proof on both sides. In this elective, we will briefly review the differences between the two approaches and will then focus on ways of defending the comparative worlds model against the truth-testing model. (Examples of comparative frameworks will be provided.) Debaters should come prepared to discuss and brainstorm answers to specific truth-testing positions, in addition to creating general defenses of comparative positions. This elective is designed for advanced debaters interested in running comparative positions and should be helpful to those who plan to compete on the national circuit and/or at major Texas tournaments. Students who are unfamiliar with the clash between these two models should consider first taking Andrew Cockroft's elective "Truth-Testing vs. Comparative Worlds" as it will provide an introductory background for the material we will cover.
Social Contract, Part 1: Understanding & Defending It by Dan Jennis
The Social Contract refers to the agreement made between citizens and government that gives the state the right to rule. The Social Contract is ultimately the foundation of a healthy political system because it explains why citizens are willing to consent to the coercive authority of law. This elective is part one of a two-part series on one of the most important and widely used concepts in LD. “Social Contract, Part 2: Shredding It” 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. We will end with recommendations that will help you successfully run and defend positions utilizing Social Contract concepts. This elective is intended for those students who are fairly new to debate, but it should be helpful for anyone who wants to better comprehend every facet of this prevalent, but not fully understood, philosophical idea.
Social Contract, Part 2: Shredding It 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 “Social Contract, Part 1: Understanding and Defending It,” which is being 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 might 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.
Utility vs. Deontology: Is It the Journey or Destination? 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 crucial for any LD competitor.
Intersubjective Morality by Dan Jennis
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 that notions of right and wrong are probably manmade but allows that these notions can be accepted as 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. This elective is recommended for advanced debaters who have experience in dealing with complex philosophical positions, though the material that will be covered can be useful for any tournament.
The Economics of Public Policy by Dan Jennis
Almost all political decisions feature an inherent economic component and improving your understanding of this dynamic can give you an edge in debate rounds. Public policy is consistently debated on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, with questions of overall affordability foremost among governmental concerns. But, public policy impacts consumers and firms on an individual level. This elective will examine important public policy decisions at the microeconomic level, with an emphasis on how plans and programs benefit and harm singular actors within a market. The goal of this elective is to give you the tools to analyze and criticize advocacies from an informed economic perspective. This is an intermediate level lecture that does not require any advanced knowledge of economics; however, some difficult economic material will be covered.
Political Transitions by Dan Jennis
As protests in Iran result in violence and repression, we are reminded that the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democracy is complicated and potentially dangerous. In this elective, we will explore the process of democratization, examining the complex process by which a nation changes from a non-democratic to a democratic regime. We will focus on how democracy emerges, what factors make democracy successful, how foreign governments influence democratic development, and why democratization matters. This elective is good for debaters of all skill levels and caters to those who prefer more concrete applications of political philosophy.
Answering Confusing Positions by Tyler Cook
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.
The UIL Advantage by Tyler Cook
This elective is for anyone who competes on the UIL circuit in Texas – either for those who only compete in UIL or for those who compete in other circuits (like TFA) most of the year and then do UIL districts, regionals, and state at the end. We will discuss the stylistic differences between the various circuits – UIL, TFA, TOC, and NFL Districts and Nationals. Having a key understanding of these differences is a must for anyone competing in more than one circuit. More generally, we will discuss the concept of adaptation, so that you are able to prepare for almost any type of judge. Then we will specifically focus on how to win in UIL. We will discuss the dos and don’ts for UIL judges, and what they will expect. Indeed, in UIL everything from the value/criterion to evidence is used in a slightly different fashion, and we will go over those distinctions. If you are interested in not only qualifying to UIL State, but potentially winning at this tournament, this elective will prepare you with an advantage.
Tips for the Underdog by Jessie Stellmach
All debaters at some point in their careers are going to be at a perceived disadvantage. This elective is for those who have not yet had the privilege of being pummeled by a surprising round or for those who are coming out of their novice year ready for a battle. Whether you are the UIL debater hitting a TFA star or it is your first run at a national tournament, these rounds can be crippling to the ego if you don't have a strategy prepared. This elective will focus on tips and tactics for keeping your cool, keeping up in the round, and fighting the good fight. Although this lecture won’t cover specific kinds of arguments like kritiks or theory, the techniques we will discuss will be useful for understanding any kind of argument you may encounter, providing you with valuable tools as you make your way into the varsity field or onto the national circuit.
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. We also will discuss where these “postmodern” ideas are applicable in debate and what new lines of argumentation they potentially open up. 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.
Theory, Part 1: An Introduction by Garner Lanier
Theory debate 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 taught by Ryan Bennett on how to answer theory. 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 theory arguments, including how to justify them. We will then cover some examples and the different types of theory arguments that are made. This elective will end with a discussion about theory’s place in LD debate and about how students think theory should progress and occur in rounds.
Theory, Part 2: How to Answer It by Ryan Bennett
This is the second elective in a two-part series. Students are strongly advised to take “Theory, Part 1: An Introduction” by Garner Lanier before taking part two. Only students who are already well-informed about theory and who have experience with it in varsity rounds may attend part two alone. Theory has become commonplace at many TOC tournaments or on the national circuit and can be central to resolving debates here. Theory also is rapidly increasing in popularity on local circuits, especially in some areas of Texas. This session will focus on ways to respond on substantive and technical levels to theory, identifying necessary components and outlining several strategies for dealing with them. There will be specific emphasis on having multiple layers of response to theory. The elective will be presented so as to be accessible by students of varied knowledge and experience. It should be helpful to anybody who expects to encounter theory at the tournaments they will be attending next year.
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," in which 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.
Biopower by Garner Lanier
Biopower is a term coined by French philosopher Michel Foucault. The first half of the elective focuses on the Foucauldian use of this term to describe a form of power which manages people as a group. "Biopower" is sometimes used as a buzzword in debate to describe manipulation by the government to control its population and can be inappropriately applied. This elective will first explore the origins of the term biopower and Foucault's conception of the term in his book “History of Sexuality: Volume 1,” while exploring debate applications. The second half of the elective will focus on Giorgio Agamben's notion of state sovereignty and biopower by focusing on two of his works “Homo Sacer” and “State of Exception.” This will serve as an introduction to Agamben's ideas. We will discuss how Agamben uses the conception of biopower, and how the state can simultaneously include and exclude the life of citizens. The elective will end in a discussion and brainstorming of the applicability of these ideas to the jury nullification topic (or economic sanctions if during the extension). This is intended to be an introduction for varsity and advanced students to some very dense works so that they can later continue reading from these and related authors with better understanding.
We are adding the following two electives by Kiwi Gupta, 2009 Dulles graduate and TFA State semifinalist, who will be joining us the second week as a lab assistant.
Counterplans by Kiwi Gupta
The past two years have shown an enormous proliferation of the use of plans and counterplans in LD debate on the national circuit and in some regions. A debater can walk into a round these days knowing that kritiks, etc., are fair game while having a counterplan take them by surprise. This elective aims to familiarize students with the structure and theory of counterplans. For those who are interested in using them, we will discuss how to run them effectively in addition to how to answer them, weigh against them, turn them, and all sorts of goodies. This is an elective for varsity and advanced students who already have a solid grasp on basic LD case construction.
Philosophy of Language by Kiwi Gupta
This elective will explore the different intricacies of words and their meanings with a focus on how debaters can use this knowledge to help them in rounds. The first portion of the elective will touch on basic theories such as semiotics, linguistics, and the nature of meaning. We'll be looking to answer questions such as: What is meaning (definition vs. denotation), how do we communicate (speaker vs. interpreter), and how does the meaning of a sentence emerge out of its parts. The debate application section shows students how they can approach topics more creatively, using certain words/phrases to set up their positions or to exclude opposing arguments. There also will be some discussion about "topicality." This elective will be interactive as case examples are examined. This is an elective for varsity and advanced debaters who already have a strong grasp on basic LD casing and who are looking for different ways to construct their positions.
Nietzsche and the Will to Power by Ryan Bennett
Regardless of his unfortunate reputation with many people, Nietzsche is one of the most unique and influential philosophers of all time. In this elective, we will devote approximately half of the time to understanding the Will to Power theory as a meta-ethic and its counterparts in Nietzsche's work. Then, we will explore applications to debate. There will be some example positions which we will discuss to determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of the theory in context. Information on external sources to consult will be provided upon conclusion. This is an elective for varsity and advanced students who are already comfortable with the foundational LD philosophy and ready to explore other avenues of literature. However, anyone with strong allergies to elitism should bring an inhaler.
The following elective is being added to our list:
Economic Sanctions by Perry Beard
This elective will provide students with a topic analysis over the economic sanctions resolution, which is likely to be debated next year. Students will be provided links to articles with excellent evidence on the topic as well as receive information regarding affirmative and negative positions. Students will also gain insight into the perspective of a judge on this resolution and get an idea of what arguments are likely to be successful. This elective is for students attending the main session but not staying for the extension. It is being offered to allow our main session students the benefit of some exposure to the resolution we will be covering during the third week. Students staying for the extension will be given a separate topic analysis on the economic sanctions resolution at the beginning of the third week.
Preparing for a Winning Tournament by Perry Beard
This elective is an all-purpose look at tournament preparation. The goal will be to instruct debaters on how to put themselves in the best position possible to win tournaments. Students will learn how to do all of the little things that separates the outstanding debaters from the ones that are simply competitive. Special attention will be paid to everything from organization, flowing, and CX demeanor to what to eat, what supplies to bring, and what not to say in the hall between rounds. Essentially, this is everything you wanted to know about being a winning debater that nobody ever told you! For students newer to competition, this elective will be especially helpful in teaching you what to expect from tournaments and how to get the most out of them.
Ethics of Care by Ryan Bennett
As an unfortunate reality of the world, justice can be hard, cold, and mean. By examining the intricacies and feasibility of an ethic of care, this elective will focus on how the social phenomena of relationships can be formulated into an effective moral decision calculus. We will discuss different version of this concept, which has evolved out of feminist examinations of psychology and philosophy as a rejection to the idea that ethics should be based on the notion of categorical principles (a common notion in LD rounds). Instead, the care ethic embraces a context-specific, interpersonal approach. We will consider major objections to this idea and will discuss ways in which care ethics can be applied in a debate format, as well as in the debate community. No specific level of debate experience will be needed to participate in the discussion; however, the argument applications are for varsity to advanced students. This is not a good choice for those who have general problems with feminism, caring about people, or reforming ethics.
Nontraditional Ballot Stories by Ryan Bennett
The way a debate round should be decided is much more open to interpretation than many students realize. As an introduction to some atypical approaches to debate rounds, this elective will expose and explain several ways to approach the resolution that you may not come across often, ranging from performance to aesthetics. We will discuss the reasons somebody might run such cases and address ways to respond to them. This elective is for advanced debaters with varsity experience who already have a strong grasp on LD fundamentals and who are interested in exploring creative approaches beyond the norm. Come with the understanding that these approaches are not traditional and are going to be rejected by some judges and in some regions. However, thinking through these different ways to conceptualize argumentation can deepen your understanding (both personally and competitively) of what it means to advocate a position.
Turns 101 by Josh Aguilar
Turning your opponent's argument is one of the most effective strategies for winning a debate round. Lots of debaters make turns, but very few make them properly. This elective will be geared towards intermediate debaters and have a strong emphasis on: the parts to a turn, turn strategy, and weighing between offense generated by turns. We will discuss the differences between link turns and impact turns along with how and when to strategically utilize both. As a group, we will go over various parts of a case and generate multiple turns. The goal of this lecture is to have you prepared and confident in making turns to win rounds.
Rawls & Nozick by Josh Aguilar
Rawls and Nozick are probably the most cited modern philosophers in debate. While they may be similar in terms of their popularity with debaters, their conceptions of justice vary greatly. This elective will examine each philosophy as it pertains to justice. Rawls maintains that justice is fairness and that society ought to strive for an equal distribution of liberty. Conversely, Nozick maintains that property rights are nearly absolute and that forcing one to give to another is tantamount to slavery. This discussion will be paralleled with how to apply these arguments to debate. Rawls and Nozick both establish standards for their beginning premises as well as the conclusions that follow. Similarly, debaters can use their takes on justice to establish standards and contentions in LD cases. This is an elective for any student who would like to learn more about these two foundational LD philosophers.
Pre-Standard Arguments & No-Risk Outs by Andrew Cockroft
Have you ever been faced with a 1AR where you wonder how you can cover so many no-risk arguments in 4 minutes? Or have you ever been in the NC attempting to disrupt a well-planned 1AC strategy? The ground that is opened and closed by pre-standard and no-risk arguments allow the strategy of debate to be literally put on another level. In this lecture, you will first learn about the strategy behind these kinds of arguments and then how to use them with this strategy in mind. And of course a lecture on no-risk outs is not complete without a way to beat back the dreaded multiple pre-standard constructive. This lecture is for any intermediate to advanced student who normally sees pre-standard or no-risk debate in their circuit or region.
Truth-Testing v. Comparative Worlds by Andrew Cockroft
If the judge’s role is to be understood properly, one must first understand how the resolution is being evaluated by said judge. Is it a test or is it desirable? In this elective, we will come to understand the terminology and philosophy behind the two competing paradigms regarding the judge’s role in LD. In doing so we will go through the origins of these paradigms; how they have evolved over the history of LD value-debate. Moreover, we will discuss the areas in which these paradigms clash and the subsequent strategies these differences require. This elective will help you better understand judge paradigms and some of the policy shifts that have begun to take place in LD. This elective is an introduction for varsity debaters to a more advanced understanding of resolutional burdens.
I'm curious to know if any of these lectures or notes are available online. Is there any resources that you would recommend for this sort of information, whether through your program, or otherwise?
Post a Comment