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
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Main Session Topic Announced
Resolved: In the United States, the principle of jury nullification is a just check on government.
This will be the LD topic for the two-week main session. This resolution is on the list for potential topics between Nov.-Dec. 2009 and Sept.-Oct. 2010. We think there is a good chance that this topic will be voted in by coaches; however, the guessing is never perfect. So, we also have chosen this topic because we think it will be a good teaching topic for camp. It raises a lot of classic LD issues for those beginning in debate and allows for more advanced debaters to go in some interesting directions.
If you haven't heard the term "jury nullification" before, you are still probably familiar with the idea if you watch any of the legal dramas on TV. Here is a definition from Doug Linder, a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City: "Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of 'Not Guilty' despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding." Those in favor of jury nullification think it can be a way to generate justice when faced with immoral situations. Others think that this destroys the balance of powers/democratic process in our government by allowing juries to legislate in trials. One case that Prof. Linder gives as an historical example of jury nullification is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing "seditious libels" of the governor of the Colony of New York. Despite the fact that Zenger did print the materials, the jury found him "not guilty," and this was considered an important decision in terms of free speech. Some other potential examples discussed by authors: In the 1800s, individuals who harbored slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act were sometimes found "not guilty" by juries in northern states. During prohibition in the 1930s, some juries acquitted individuals who violated the alcohol control laws. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who is known for assisting terminally ill patients with suicide despite this being against the law in nearly all states, has benefited from jury nullification when brought to trial.
Our schedule will require that cases be finished within the first four days of camp so that we can begin critiqued practice debates. This is actually more time than many camps give for case preparation, but it still is a highly tight crunch. It is recommended that students begin reading, researching, and learning about the topic prior to coming to UTNIF. Some more advanced students may choose to work on cases ahead of time, but this is not required. If case writing is something you are trying to improve, you may want to wait to get guidance from your instructors. Nevertheless, everyone can benefit from reading about the topic ahead of time and familiarizing themselves with the key issues. Very soon, articles will be made available to students via email and the blog. Check back for that research.
We are still trying to decide upon the resolution for the extension. That will be posted soon here as a comment to this message.
This will be the LD topic for the two-week main session. This resolution is on the list for potential topics between Nov.-Dec. 2009 and Sept.-Oct. 2010. We think there is a good chance that this topic will be voted in by coaches; however, the guessing is never perfect. So, we also have chosen this topic because we think it will be a good teaching topic for camp. It raises a lot of classic LD issues for those beginning in debate and allows for more advanced debaters to go in some interesting directions.
If you haven't heard the term "jury nullification" before, you are still probably familiar with the idea if you watch any of the legal dramas on TV. Here is a definition from Doug Linder, a constitutional law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City: "Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of 'Not Guilty' despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding." Those in favor of jury nullification think it can be a way to generate justice when faced with immoral situations. Others think that this destroys the balance of powers/democratic process in our government by allowing juries to legislate in trials. One case that Prof. Linder gives as an historical example of jury nullification is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing "seditious libels" of the governor of the Colony of New York. Despite the fact that Zenger did print the materials, the jury found him "not guilty," and this was considered an important decision in terms of free speech. Some other potential examples discussed by authors: In the 1800s, individuals who harbored slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act were sometimes found "not guilty" by juries in northern states. During prohibition in the 1930s, some juries acquitted individuals who violated the alcohol control laws. Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who is known for assisting terminally ill patients with suicide despite this being against the law in nearly all states, has benefited from jury nullification when brought to trial.
Our schedule will require that cases be finished within the first four days of camp so that we can begin critiqued practice debates. This is actually more time than many camps give for case preparation, but it still is a highly tight crunch. It is recommended that students begin reading, researching, and learning about the topic prior to coming to UTNIF. Some more advanced students may choose to work on cases ahead of time, but this is not required. If case writing is something you are trying to improve, you may want to wait to get guidance from your instructors. Nevertheless, everyone can benefit from reading about the topic ahead of time and familiarizing themselves with the key issues. Very soon, articles will be made available to students via email and the blog. Check back for that research.
We are still trying to decide upon the resolution for the extension. That will be posted soon here as a comment to this message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
